Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Debate on the Address
	 — 
	[Second Day]

Douglas Alexander: May I begin, on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, by extending his apologies to the House for his absence today? My right hon. Friend is in Washington for talks with senior members of the Administration and Congress.
	May I also take this opportunity to extend a warm welcome to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) to his new role as shadow Foreign Secretary, although I understand he may already have an application in for a more senior position in his party?
	I want to speak today on the three priorities of the Government's foreign policy: first, maintaining and strengthening the United Kingdom's role as a leading European power, shaping the future of a reforming European Union; secondly, working to make the UK more secure by tackling threats such as terrorism and proliferation and acting to resolve conflict; and thirdly, our commitment to the long-term engagement required to build the conditions for a safer and fairer world.
	Let me take those in turn, beginning with Europe. This Government came to power in 1997 determined to restore Britain to our rightful place as a leading power in a reforming European Union. Since then, the UK has led the push for early and wide enlargement of the European Union, which culminated in the historic accession of 10 new members last May. Two more, Romania and Bulgaria, are set to join in 2007. Under our presidency this October, the EU will launch accession negotiations with Turkey. That will be the fulfilment of a major and long-standing goal of the UK's foreign policy, and I know that it will be welcomed by all parties. We will continue to lead support for EU enlargement—a process that works greatly in the UK's interests by expanding the community of democratic and prosperous nations, opening up new opportunities for British business, and spreading reform across the whole European continent.
	Moreover, under the new Commission of President Barroso, the EU has affirmed its commitment to making its economies more dynamic and flexible. Although there is still much more to do, the task of reforming the common agricultural policy has begun. The Government's firm conviction is that Britain's interest overwhelmingly lies as a strong, engaged member of the European Union. The British people have shown again at the recent election their endorsement for parties that favour such an approach and their rejection of those that want to take us out of the European Union, whether openly or by stealth, and so put the prosperity and security that we have won at risk.
	The Government's approach to the negotiations on a new constitutional treaty for the European Union was consistent with our overall approach: we sought to negotiate a framework for a Europe in which the nations are strong, which works more effectively and efficiently and which can better deliver growth and reform.
	In contrast, the Opposition stated on page 26 of their manifesto that they want not only a rejection of this treaty, but a renegotiation of the texts of the existing treaties. That renegotiation would require the agreement of every other of the EU's 25 member states, so I invite the shadow Foreign Secretary in his remarks today to point to one other member state that supports the Conservative party's position on renegotiation of the treaties. Even John Major, the former Prime Minister, whom the shadow Foreign Secretary served as a Foreign Office Minister, describes the policy of renegotiation as "crazy".
	In truth, the Conservatives' kind of Europe is what Lord Willoughby de Broke, a former Conservative peer, described thus is a speech last June:
	"like going to McDonalds and ordering a lobster thermidor."
	That is, it is very nice to have but it is simply "not on the menu".

Douglas Alexander: Yes, the people of Gibraltar will have the opportunity to participate, which reflects the situation relating to European elections that has existed for some time now.
	I welcome the discussions on the treaty that we have begun to have, in a nascent form, this morning. Members will have the opportunity during these debates and discussions to expose the myths and distortions of the anti-Europeans for what they are. The case for the new treaty—based on fact, rather than myth—is the case for a modern, reforming Europe that is delivering greater prosperity and security to its members, and whose members are in the driving seat.
	The treaty will give more powers to the member states, through the European Council, in which national Governments set the European Union's priorities and ensure that they are carried through. By replacing the current system of six-monthly rotating presidencies of the European Council—the body in which the European Union's member countries set the organisation's priorities—with a full-time Chair, we shall ensure that we, the nations, set the European Union's agenda and get it implemented. That is a widely supported reform, and I am pleased to say that its supporters include the leader of the Conservative party in the European Parliament.
	Decision-making will be simpler, where that makes sense, but we shall retain the national veto on areas of vital national interest such as tax, social security, foreign policy, defence and key areas of criminal law, along with the European Union's budget and, of course, future changes to the treaty. For the first time, national Parliaments will have the power to send European Union legislative proposals back for review, if one third of national Parliaments believe that a draft law infringes the principle that the EU should act only where it adds value—the so-called subsidiarity principle.

Peter Luff: Have the Government have had second thoughts? Will they enable this national Parliament to express its view separately on the question of the ratification of the constitution and on the question of a referendum? Many of us would like to vote no to one and yes to the other.

Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the Minister's suggestion about a worldwide convention on the arms trade and arms dealing. Will he turn his attention to the non-proliferation treaty talks that are going on in New York at present? Can he give the House an assurance that the British Government will adhere to the original terms of the treaty, which is for global nuclear disarmament, and that this will be included in a British proposal for the conclusion of this year's conference?

Douglas Alexander: I will certainly be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman in relation to the point that he raises.
	As G8 and EU Presidents, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will also attend the UN millennium review summit in New York this September. As well as being a forum for stronger action on development and especially on Africa, the summit provides an excellent opportunity to strengthen the UN and make it more effective. We strongly welcome UN Secretary-General Annan's "In Larger Freedom" report, which sets out innovative ideas for reform within a framework, rightly linking the challenges of development, security and human rights. We will work with other Governments, the Secretary-General and the President of the General Assembly to encourage member states to sign up to as full a package of reforms as possible at the summit in September.
	This year marks the 60th anniversary of the end of the second world war—perhaps the proudest moment in our national history—yet for some time the year 1945 also symbolised the end of an era for the United Kingdom's power and influence in the world. Now, 60 years on, the United Kingdom is Europe's strongest large economy, and Britain is strong today not just because of our economy or our alliances: we are strong, too, because we are confident of the role that we can play in the world. We are proud of our strong values and our network of global friendships and influence. When we tackle poverty and hunger, act to resolve conflicts or work for the spread of peaceful, democratic institutions, we are promoting both our values and our own security and well-being, along with those of the world as a whole. Today, with this Government, Britain is a nation determined to be at the heart of international efforts to build a safer, fairer and more prosperous world.

Liam Fox: I begin by saying how delighted I am to be back at the Dispatch Box again after my 18 months exile with those at central office—although probably not as delighted as they are. I am disappointed that the Foreign Secretary is not here for this debate. He had the courtesy to call me personally to explain why, for which I am grateful. Notwithstanding that, the date of the Queen's Speech has been known for some time, and I hope that the Government will ensure that their business is better organised and more coherent in future.
	This is indeed a good time for us to review our foreign policy in general. We are the world's fourth largest economy, with a unique trading pattern and long and varied historical contacts. Yet, despite what the Minister has just said, the ambitions set for our country have been far too modest, the focus of policy has been too narrow, and there has been too much tactical thinking and not enough strategic vision. We need to look for new opportunities and challenges. Our long-term prosperity depends on finding new markets and new trading partners.
	We need to ditch the hang-ups of those who seem obsessed with apologising for our history, and turn the good will and respect for this country, which stills exists extensively around the world, into new economic opportunities. We need to look ever more outwards and remember that the world does not end at the southern border of Greece, the western border of Portugal or the eastern border of Poland and the Baltic states.
	The charge that we lay against the Government is that they are insufficiently ambitious for the United Kingdom. Too much foreign policy is about grandstanding, rather than the national interest. There is far too much short-term tactical consideration, and they have failed to exploit the many opportunities that they have been given. They have failed to understand that British foreign policy is about doing what is in Britain's national interest. They seem to confuse policy and diplomacy. It is for Ministers to set out policy in the national interest and for the diplomatic service to carry out that policy diplomatically.
	Let me give the House just one example that indicates the problem. The European Union has been very keen to lift the arms embargo on China, largely to accommodate the wishes of the French and German defence industries. That policy has been strongly opposed by the United States, which has indicated its unwillingness to see new defence technology shared with the United Kingdom if it will subsequently be simply exported to China. There is no strategic interest for the United Kingdom in arming Chinese defence forces, but there is clearly a downside in terms of defence co-operation with the United States. Yet the policy has been decided not on the basis of our national interest, but on the short-term tactical interest of the Prime Minister at the beginning of the EU presidency. The obsession with regaining popularity among European leaders seems to take precedence over any other considerations. As long as it is good for him, it does not matter if it is bad for British industry and British jobs.

Liam Fox: We are all allowed to have some progress in our views. For example:
	"The EEC has pushed up prices especially for food . . . Above all, the EEC takes away Britain's freedom to follow the sort of economic policies we need. These are just two of the reasons for coming out."
	That was the Prime Minister during the Beaconsfield by-election in 1982.
	We made it very clear at this election that we want to have a different relationship with the EU—a more flexible relationship—but to remain within the EU. That was extremely clear during the general election. We have to have a different relationship with a different EU because, over-burdened by parasitic bureaucracy, hard-working people across the EU are overtaxed, businesses struggle to compete and the cost of failure is paid for by the young unemployed of France and Germany and by the diminished potential of the next generation. The real problem of the EU is not that described the little Englanders—that Europe is too foreign—but that it is not foreign enough. The EU needs to be more outward looking and flexible, and should end its absurd obsession with uniformity, which causes unnecessary friction and time wasting.

Liam Fox: No, we should play our full role in developing a more flexible European Union that would be in Britain's best interests.
	All of this is important because in the coming months, no doubt in great detail, we will have to decide whether we want to sign up to the next chapter of European integration. We will debate the issues in the Bill that the Government bring forward—I am sorry that there will not be two Bills, rather than one. The German Minister for Europe, Hans Martin Bury, has said:
	"the EU constitution is the birth certificate of the United States of Europe . . . the constitution is not the endpoint of integration, but the framework for as it says in the preamble, 'an ever closer union'."
	That is far from the tidying-up exercise described by the Government.
	The new constitution would undermine individual member states' ability to determine their own policies in key areas such as the economy, law and order, and asylum and immigration. The European Union would gain most of the trappings of statehood, with its own president, Foreign Minister and legal system. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has said:
	"countries have constitutions: nation states make treaties with one another."
	The Government's whole handling of the European constitution is typical of how they do business in Europe. First, they say that nothing damaging to Britain is being proposed. When that is proposed, they say that they will block it. Then when they give in, they say that it is a good thing for Britain after all.
	A former Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), is in the Chamber. He claimed that the charter of fundamental rights would be as legally binding as the Beano. However, in the constitution the charter will have full legal status and will be enforced through the European Court of Justice.
	Another former Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain), claimed that the negotiations on the constitution were a "triumph for Britain". The truth is that the Government simply abandoned many of their objections and accepted proposals that they had previously condemned. During negotiations, the right hon. Gentleman tabled 275 different amendments. Only 27 were included in the final draft, yet the objections covered many important areas.
	The Government called for the new EU power to
	"ensure coordination of the employment policies of member states"
	to be deleted, but they were ignored. They said that they did not want an EU Foreign Minister. The right hon. Member for Neath said that that was "unacceptable", but the Government were ignored. They opposed making the charter of fundamental rights legally binding, but in the end, as ever, they gave way. Originally, the Government were against the very idea of a constitution. In 2000, the Prime Minister said that there should not be
	"a single legally binding document called a constitution".
	However, in the end he gave way to those other member states that wanted one—how typical.
	On 12 May 1997, the new Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Robin Cook), launched his mission statement. He said:
	"the Labour government does not accept that political values can be left behind when we check in our passports to travel on diplomatic business . . . our foreign policy must have an ethical dimension and must support the demands of other peoples for the democratic rights on which we insist for ourselves. The Labour government will put human rights at the heart of our foreign policy".
	To that I say just one word: Zimbabwe.
	On Africa, the many speeches and endless photo opportunities of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have generated far more heat than light. In his speech to launch the report of the Commission for Africa on 11 March, the Prime Minister managed not to mention Zimbabwe at all, yet it is surely the greatest stain on all of Africa's fragile democratic record.
	For all his talk, the Prime Minister has achieved little. When robust action was required, he looked the other way. Robert Mugabe has destroyed the rule of law, contravened human rights in the most appalling way and destroyed his country's prosperity with casual indifference, yet this British Government have stood idly by. They have bottled out of confronting President Mbeki on his tacit support for Robert Mugabe. Zimbabwe depends on South African energy supplies, yet the Government seem afraid to demand action from President Mbeki.

Liam Fox: I think that members of all parties in the House would agree that it would be beneficial—full stop—if Iran did not develop the potential for nuclear weapons. We would certainly support any Government efforts to that end. We want a transparent course of action that is set out well in advance by the Government.
	Much is talked today about globalisation. One of the benevolent consequences of globalisation is that it is more difficult for Governments to misrule their peoples and mismanage their resources without quickly running into problems. Globalisation may not make bad government more difficult, but it certainly makes it more apparent. International interdependence brings opportunities as well as challenges. Interdependence based on free trade increases political stability and makes military conflict less likely. Governments require stability to ensure that their economic interests are not interrupted, and having vested interests in other countries reinforces the likelihood of effective international defence co-operation.
	Free trade offers opportunities for exporters to take advantage of new markets as they emerge. Michigan university estimates that if only a third of all tariffs on agriculture, manufacturing and services were cut, world trade would rise by more than $600 billion—equivalent to an economy the size of Canada. Free trade offers the best opportunity for third-world countries to provide themselves with a sustainable income, and it is infinitely preferable to long-term dependence on aid.
	Although no one can deny the vital role that aid plays in the short term, it is too often little more than "conscience money" paid out by developed economies that are preventing less developed countries from gaining access to their markets. We have all seen examples of that over recent years. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) made much of that in her time in office. Aid has become synonymous with caring about poverty, but on the ground it is all too often a process of taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries.
	We in this country have one of the best—if not the best—programmes of bilateral aid in the world. We need greater control over the aid budget. The work of the British Council and non-governmental organisations shows just how effective our programmes can be when they are managed on the ground by those who understand local conditions. Those of us who have seen their work at first hand have marvelled at their skill and efficiency. What a contrast that is to the expensive and bureaucratic operations run by so many multilateral organisations.
	This country has much to offer in Europe and beyond. We will support the Government where they do the right things. We will particularly support their efforts to deal with global warming and the effects of climate change; that affects all the world and its future generations. In the United Kingdom, the compassion of our citizens, the expertise of many of our organisations, our economic and political standing, and our historical perspective and diplomatic experience give us natural advantages in pursuing a positive, outward-looking and optimistic foreign policy. All that holds us back is our Government's lack of ambition. We need a foreign policy that is run for the long-term interests of the United Kingdom, not for the short-term tactical interests of this Labour Government. It is a sad state of affairs, but it will not always be so.

Jeremy Corbyn: I made that point earlier. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. There must be some independent verification of the number of civilians who have died during the invasion, since the invasion and as a result of the current unrest in Iraq. We need to know the full scale of horror.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) called Iraq a third world country. Yes, it is now, but it was not always thus. There was a period when Iraq had one of the highest standards of living within the region, with the best standards of health care and education. Those standards were certainly far better than anything in any neighbouring country. Sadly, that has all been destroyed.
	The neo-con proposals appear to be to continue with heavy threats against Iran and possibly to move against Syria in future. I hope that there is no such plan to engage in further military adventures in the region. Instead, apart from withdrawal from Iraq, we should turn our attention to a solution to the problem in Palestine. When talking to anyone anywhere in the middle east, it is clear that the running sore throughout the political class is the issue of Palestine.
	In January I had the good fortune to be in Palestine. I was in Gaza, as an observer during the presidential elections. There was relative calm on polling day by Gaza standards. There was some shooting by occupying forces in Rafiah and other places. Ordinary, decent people, wanting to survive, to live and to get their kids in school—all that sort of thing—said that living in Gaza is living in an open prison. Having spoken to people from the mental health foundation in Gaza, they legitimately told me that they thought that almost two thirds of the population had some degree of mental health problems because of the occupation and the stress that goes with it. The stress of occupation and poverty—unemployment runs at 70 to 80 per cent.—leads people to do crazy and extreme things. I condemn suicide bombing in any form, as it is ludicrous, wrong and abhorrent in every way, but we must consider the circumstances that breed such anger and outrage. We should listen to the voices of the peace movement in Israel and Palestine, and say firmly and bluntly to the Israeli Government that withdrawal from Gaza is not enough. There must also be withdrawal from the west bank, an end to the settlement policy and recognition of the role of east Jerusalem in a future Palestinian state. If we move in that direction, many other things become possible in both the region and the wider world. We must take that step and be prepared to put tough pressure on Israel to achieve withdrawal.
	I could speak about many other issues, but I am conscious that many other Members wish to speak, so I shall refer briefly to only two other broad areas. During the election, the "Make Poverty History" day became a welcome feature of campaigning. The issue is crucial—we cannot continue to live in a world where a quarter of the population lives on the brink of starvation and call it a world of peace and justice. Interestingly, there was consensus among most of the political parties about the need to eliminate poverty globally. That is a credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), the former Secretary of State for International Development, and others who have done much to educate people about the realities of world poverty and what needs to be done to tackle it.
	It is not enough to say that we will wear wrist bands or go to Trafalgar square to support the "Make Poverty History" programme unless we are prepared to do something about the issue. I welcome the document produced by the Commission for Africa, as it includes a welcome section on the colonial history of Africa, its impoverishment and the deskilling effects on the continent. Anyone who has visited the poorest African countries will accept that none of the millennium targets will be met given the current rate of progress. In Angola, the majority of children barely receive any education at all. Those who do receive education are taught in classes of 70 or 80 in ramshackle buildings with no facilities whatsoever. The notion that we will conquer illiteracy within the time frame of the millennium goals is simply unrealistic. Many other problems including health care and associated areas must be addressed. AIDS is a huge issue, but it is not the only one affecting people's health throughout Africa.
	The debt write-off proposals are very welcome, but we must also consider the issue of African trade and development. If the Government are serious about adhering to the commission's proposals, they must adopt a tough attitude towards the United States and the European Union at the next round of World Trade Organisation talks, otherwise we will continue with a policy that protects the richest farmers in the richest countries, impoverishes the poorest people in the poorest countries and prevents Africa as a producer continent from processing its own products.

Jeremy Corbyn: My parliamentary neighbour is very kind, but I will have to deny her the pleasure of listening to me for very much longer.
	I want to conclude with a point that I made during an intervention on the Minister, and that is the issue of the non-proliferation treaty review conference that is going on in New York at present. That was a landmark treaty achieved during the cold war in which we talked clearly about the long-term proposal for the five declared nuclear weapon states to disarm. It has to be welcome; it has to be a good thing. That was its long-term objective. Because of the existence of that treaty, it has been possible to say firmly to other countries that were thinking of developing nuclear weapons that they should not do so. It has had considerable effect. There are some estimates that as many as 25 countries would have developed nuclear weapons by now had it not been for that treaty.
	But to achieve success requires a clear statement by the Government. I welcome the fact that the Queen's Speech said nothing about developing a new generation of nuclear weapons. I wish that it had said that there would be no new generation of nuclear weapons, but at least by not saying the opposite it gives that possibility.
	I have received reports about the NPT conference—I must declare that I am a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and that I have been a member of CND for as long as I have been a member of the Labour party, which is since the age of 16—and I shall quote from the comprehensive overview of the situation released by the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed el-Baradei:
	"as long as some countries place strategic reliance on nuclear weapons as a deterrent, other countries will emulate them"
	and
	"we cannot delude ourselves into thinking otherwise".
	We would do well to recognise Mohamed el-Baradei's wise words.
	I have received a report about the unfortunate news from New York:
	"The US has refused to accept the inclusion of any reference to both the 1995 and 2000 NPT Review Conference. This means reneging on a significant step made at the 2000 Conference when the UK and the four other declared nuclear weapons states gave an 'unequivocal undertaking to work toward the total elimination of their nuclear weapons' and the 13-point practical step agreement to achieve that goal".
	When the BBC's "Newsnight" programme interviewed the Prime Minister, I was disturbed to hear him say that we must retain our nuclear deterrent and that we have had an independent nuclear deterrent for a long time. I question the use of the word, "independent", in respect of the British nuclear deterrent, but we clearly possess nuclear weapons. We should strongly support the NPT process and recognise that Trident must not be replaced by a new generation of nuclear weapons. As Trident ceases to be operational, we should stop living with nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons have not brought peace to the world, because they take up a lot of resources and present the danger of proliferation.
	The Government's approach to Iran, which involves a troika talking to the Iranian regime, is welcome and helpful, and I hope that it continues. If we transmit positive signals through our participation in the NPT review conference, it will help to bring about the possibility of wider nuclear disarmament, which we all want to achieve. Many tens of thousands died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the only use of nuclear weapons in wartime. Surely we can take a step forward on the 60th anniversary of those events by saying that we will get rid of nuclear weapons worldwide and by setting the example of getting rid of ours.
	This debate comes at a very important time. We live in a world in which serious wars, which are currently occurring in Iraq, Colombia and the Congo, are a danger. Wars occur because of competition for resources, poverty, nationalism and other reasons. We cannot say that we live in a world of peace, when, as I have said, so many people live in desperate poverty. We live in one of the richest countries in the world, and surely it is up to us to do all that we can to eliminate poverty around the world, to promote peace through disarmament and to recognise the need for justice. We should bequeath those changes to future generations, rather than bringing up a new generation on a diet of weapons of mass destruction, war and conflict.

Menzies Campbell: These occasions inevitably assume some of the characteristics of a tour d'horizon, but since we all have our own pairs of binoculars, we sometimes see the horizon in different ways. That is why I apologise to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) for not following him in focusing on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and on international development, which he discussed with telling force and commitment. I have no doubt that we shall have opportunities to return to those topics on other occasions.
	The hon. Member for Islington, North struck a chord when he said that our foreign policy would play out against the backdrop of Iraq, which is inevitable so long as 8,000 British forces are still deployed there. In the course of the general election, at least one tragic event showed that those 8,000 forces are at daily risk of their lives, and, although we have deep divisions of principle and of view about Iraq itself and how Iraq should be managed, all hon. Members unstintingly admire their professionalism and commitment.
	Events during the general election campaign made it clear beyond any question that the objective from the start was to support the United States in achieving regime change in Iraq. The alleged threat of weapons of mass destruction, about which little or no evidence existed, and the existence of which has now been disproved, and the breach of United Nations resolutions, which was determined solely by the allies—the Attorney-General himself made it clear in his published opinion that he did not support that approach—provided a cloak of legality for an act that was plainly in violation of international law.
	I do not shrink from saying that in supporting regime change, the Government adopted an approach to foreign policy in which the ends sought were used to justify the means. Indeed, that is the justification to which the Prime Minister immediately resorts when he is asked about those matters. The doctrine—if it can be described as such—that the end justifies the means is very dangerous in international affairs, and it has been used throughout history to justify oppressive practices that have later been the subject of outright condemnation.
	In his comprehensive introduction to those issues, the Minister for Europe implied that human rights, peace, security and the control of weapons proliferation rest on an adherence to international rules and standards, which is a point that the hon. Member for Islington, North underlined. How can the United Kingdom insist on respect for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty by Iran, or respect for human rights in China, if we appear to have abandoned the very rule of law on which those calls are based?
	On the lifting of the European Union arms embargo against China, I will not rehearse all the arguments, but I will say this: it is wrong on human rights grounds, political grounds, strategic grounds and industrial grounds. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not support it.
	I shall turn to the current situation in Iraq, because we are constantly enjoined to consider not how we got there, but what happens now. The situation is clearly far from that which was predicted. The UN development programme has carried out the most detailed survey of living conditions in Iraq since the invasion, and its report, which was published last week, refers to major social and economic problems such as 18 per cent. unemployment. Among the thousands who were surveyed, more than eight out of 10 households suffer power shortages, only half have clean water and only one third are connected to a sewage network.
	The report identifies a significant deterioration in standards of health care and education. Doctors, nurses, medical equipment and medicines are in short supply, and a staggering 23 per cent. of children suffer from chronic malnutrition. Schools lack adequate resources and levels of youth illiteracy are high. Household incomes have plummeted, and it has been estimated that as many as six in 10 people in Iraq now live on food handouts. That is a long way short of the promised brave new world.
	Tragically, the security situation has deteriorated to the point at which the ordinary tasks of life are both difficult and dangerous for many Iraqis. The head of the American forces in Iraq reports that coalition and Iraqi forces are subject to more than 50 attacks a day. Since the formation of the new Government, more than 500 killings have occurred. It is a measure of how commonplace such killings have become that even in the broadsheet newspapers that opposed military action, one must read pages five, six or seven to find the details of what has occurred. The fear instilled under Saddam Hussein's systematic repression has been replaced by the fear of indiscriminate attacks.
	This is all because—here I recognise the point that the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), whom I welcome to his new responsibilities, made in advance of the war and has made since—there was a wholly inexcusable failure to plan for the stabilisation and reconstruction of post-war Iraq. The complete abandonment of Iraqi security forces and the determined de-Ba'athification of Iraqi institutions was of itself profoundly destabilising. That situation has not been helped by heavy-handed military operations on the part of the United States, particularly in Sunni areas. Abu Ghraib, which is once again in the news today, is a constant reminder of unacceptable behaviour with deeply damaging consequences not only in Iraq but throughout the whole middle east region.
	It is necessary to recognise that the open-ended presence of 150,000 foreign troops in Iraq fuels the insurgency. The common enemy of the insurgents, who are composed of Islamist jihadists and nationalist extremists, has become the coalition and the Iraqi security forces with whom they work. The solution has indeed become part of the problem. That is why it should be the policy of Her Majesty's Government to state as their objective a phased withdrawal by the end of December 2005, at the date of the expiry of the United Nations mandate. I believe that the withdrawal of British forces in such circumstances is entirely justified, subject to three areas in which more effort is required: the Government in Iraq should be seen to be a sovereign Government and less of a creature of the coalition; the services to which I referred should be restored in order to give the people of Iraq some semblance of normal standards of living; and security should be improved through a far higher degree of training and equipment for Iraqi forces.

Menzies Campbell: I ask the right hon. Lady to consider this from her intimate knowledge of government and of our relationship with the United States: are there circumstances in which we could have envisaged the United States ceding authority to a force of the kind that she describes? I doubt that very much. Her intention is right, but the chances of achieving it are not as great as she or I would prefer.
	That takes me on to Iran. The European Union and the United States have legitimate anxieties about Iran's use of its civil nuclear programme to conceal a nuclear weapons programme. At the heart of that is Iran's entitlement under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. However, as everyone knows, once technologies have been mastered for that purpose it is a short step to achieving the technical capability for the production of a nuclear weapon. In truth, given Iran's record of concealment and lack of co-operation with Dr. el-Baradei's organisation, the E3, as it has been described in shorthand, is certainly right to seek the permanent cessation of enrichment and reprocessing activities. We must now embrace concerted efforts to persuade Iran to uphold its suspension commitments under last year's Paris agreement, with the ultimate object of persuading it to agree to end all enrichment activities and to accept full International Atomic Energy Agency inspections. It is necessary to consider other methods, and the credible prospect of economic sanctions combined with incentives on trade and technical matters, together with the offer of security assurances, could be helpful in enabling us to reach such an agreement.
	A source of profound concern, however, is the active consideration by some in Washington of a military alternative—and, indeed, the possibility that Israel might act as some kind of surrogate of the United States. The Foreign Secretary has been unequivocal. He said in December that military action against Iran was "inconceivable". The Prime Minister, when asked to comment, said, rather more delphically, that "there are no plans". I believe that the House would want the Government to state again, unequivocally, their position on the use of force against Iran, because the risks of military action are enormous. A military strike could provoke retaliation throughout the whole of the middle east, with Israel being a direct target. Circumstances in Iraq could deteriorate if Iran thought that it was in its interests to try to stir up trouble for the coalition in order to divert attention from itself. It would most certainly strengthen the position of hard-line conservative factions in Iran at the expense of the reformists and undermine the prospect of change.
	Furthermore, an attack is far from certain to achieve its military objectives given that Iran's nuclear facilities are well hidden and well dispersed. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that any attack could prove counter-productive, leading to Iranian withdrawal from the NPT and strengthening domestic support, born out of a sense of national identity, for the acquisition of nuclear weapons.
	In that context, the issue of Israel and the Palestinians was mentioned in a trenchant intervention by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short).On many occasions in recent years we have heard from the Dispatch Box condemnations of the expansion of settlements on the west bank and of steps taken that would make it impossible for Jerusalem to be available as a capital for both communities. But what is ever done in support of those condemnations? What steps does anyone ever take? If one suggests, as I did 18 months or two years ago, that we might review the European Union's preferential arrangements for Israel, one brings a forest of condemnation and criticism down on one's head. Can we envisage any circumstances in which we would be so condemnatory of breaches of international law by any other democracy, but then stand back as the breaches continue and find ourselves incapable of taking action in support of our condemnation? On that analysis, Israel enjoys a privileged position indeed.

Chris Mullin: The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Kenneth Clarke) entertained the House with a characteristically fluent and amusing speech and made some very cogent points as well. I must disagree with his suggestion that the Government wasted their first term of office—or did he say their first two terms? I can only tell him that most of my constituents—I suspect that this may also be true of many of his constituents—are considerably better off now than they have been within recent living memory. I shall not follow him down the many paths that he wanted to lead us.
	As hon. Members can see, I am back again in my natural habitat, having made two visits to government. The first was not a wholly happy experience, but the second was: I greatly enjoyed the two years that I spent at the Foreign Office as Africa Minister. It was a great pleasure to work with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and the Secretary of State for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), who are two of the most effective and competent members of the Government. During my time there, I felt that we were achieving something: Africa is a continent about which we can hold our heads high these days, given what we are doing there and the role that we play in the world in relation to it. Not that there are no problems—there are, and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) mentioned Darfur, which I will touch briefly on in a moment.
	As hon. Members know, we count the votes very fast in Sunderland, and there has come a moment on each of the past four election nights when, for 40 or 50 minutes, I am the only Member of Parliament in the country. It is very tempting to form one's own Government during that time. On all those occasions, I have resisted that temptation, but in the light of what happened to me a few days after this election, I rather wish that I had not.
	I cannot disguise my disappointment at leaving a job that I loved in a Department where I greatly enjoyed working, but that is all that I wish to say about my personal position, although there is a general point: I was the fifth Africa Minister in eight years and my noble Friend Lord Triesman will be the sixth. I wish him well, but I wonder, if we take Africa as seriously as we say we do, whether we could not just leave a Minister in place for long enough to establish the personal relations—indeed, I did establish them, as did some of my predecessors—and maintain them with the African leaders with whom we have dealings. A distinguished African who passed through my office told me that he had never met the same Minister twice. That is a rather unsatisfactory situation.
	There is a wider point, too. We have had six Asylum and Immigration Ministers so far, seven Europe Ministers, nine Ministers with responsibility for entry clearance, of whom I was also one, and the Department of Health has been more or less cleaned out twice in the past 18 months or so. I know that decisions on such matters are for people far above my pay grade, but I gently wonder whether that is the most efficient use of resources and officials' time and whether we get the best out of people by reshuffling the pack with such terrifying rapidity.
	I was glad to see in the Gracious Speech the references to the forthcoming G8 summit over which we will preside and where I expect us to play an important part. I am glad that the Prime Minister has decided that Africa and global climate change are the two main issues that we shall seek to push up the agenda. Getting Africa into the councils of the G8 and, indeed, those of the European Union has been significantly helped by our Commission for Africa report. Although I was sceptical about that report at first, it has been rather a success and, unusually for documents of that kind, it is fluent, easy to read and the arguments are set out with beautiful clarity.
	There is a reference, too, in the Gracious Speech to Darfur, and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife was right to draw our attention to that. The problems there have not gone away; there are no easy solutions. I am not convinced that the one that he suggested would necessarily work. The path down which we have gone is to give support to the African Union force, which we hope will increase to 7,000 or 8,000 troops, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe said. We have played a leading part in providing support to the African Union. Sooner or later, there must come a point where we invest in African solutions to African problems, and this is one of the first big tests. Given Darfur's geographic isolation and the horrendously complicated politics, tribalism and factionalism that exist there, it will be a very difficult task for any outside force, under whatever banner it travels, but we must not take our eye off the ball, because there has been a huge humanitarian catastrophe and there is the potential for a far greater one.
	I shall turn briefly to the number of Bills. Many Bills in the Queen's Speech will be welcomed by my constituents, especially those that address aspects of the yob culture that blights the lives of so many of them. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe made the point, first, that there are rather a lot of Bills and, secondly, that we have had a tendency to rush them through and that they sometimes come here ill-drafted. That has been the case for a long time. It happened under his Government as much as under ours. [Hon. Members: "No."] Oh yes it did. Oh Lord it did.
	Under the previous Government, I served on Standing Committees where Bills were rewritten from end to end and then went to the Lords where they were completely rewritten again, so let us not pretend that that phenomenon began after 1997. The big step forward in the last Parliament was that we were beginning to take a systematic approach to pre-legislative scrutiny and, to some extent, were using Select Committees for that purpose, too. That is what must happen. That is the future if we are to start to produce more satisfactory legislation, and I hope that the Government will make a big effort to draft as many Bills as possible sufficiently in advance so that pre- legislative scrutiny can be undertaken. It is in the interests of the Government, Parliament and everyone to get those things right.
	I wish to address a couple of issues that were omitted from the Gracious Speech. First, I saw no reference to our commitment to sign the United Nations convention on corruption. I know that some legislative changes are required before we can do that, but I should like the Minister to say when he replies what plans we have to get on with that. It is becoming a bit of an embarrassment, and one increasingly hears distinguished foreigners asking why the UK has not signed the convention. Indeed, I was asked that very question last night at a conference at Wilton Park.
	I also wish to raise, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), the question of the next generation of nuclear weapons, because a decision on that issue falls due during this Parliament. Indeed, I am aware that some sort of preliminary decision was taken in January 2004. Those of us who have been around for a while recall what happened under the Callaghan Government with Chevaline, when a decision was taken to go ahead with the new generation of nuclear weapons without reference to the whole Cabinet, let alone to Parliament. Most members of the Cabinet and Members of Parliament found out about the decision only when a Tory Government Front-Bench spokesman revealed it some years later. I hope that we will not go down that road again. It is a very serious decision and I hope that it will be brought to Parliament for discussion before any irrevocable decisions are taken.
	The world has changed a great deal since 1977, and we should perhaps ask ourselves—people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North have been asking this question for many years, but it is even more relevant now—whether we need a new generation of nuclear weapons, whether the large sums that we might invest in them could not be better spent in another way and whether we would not gain ourselves some credit in the international community by voluntarily giving up what, frankly, is not a lot of use to us anyway.

Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman made an intriguing reference to a preliminary decision having already been taken in 2004. I do not follow defence matters as closely as many Members, but could he remind me what preliminary decision has been taken? Has any decision been taken other than to carry out a study of the implications and problems involved in renewing our capability?

Chris Mullin: I do, indeed, have in mind those reports, which have been in the public domain for some time.
	I also wish to say a word about our relationship with the United States. The Gracious Speech talks of strengthening and deepening relations between the US and the European Union, and I am all for that. However, we should not appease the US when it does things of which we do not approve. Occasionally, we have to stand up to the US and, I am glad to say, we do from time to time. I remember not long ago that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stood very firm when the US tried to kibosh the International Criminal Court. It backed down; that is the point. The other members of the international community stood up to the US and my right hon. Friend played a leading part in that. The US backed down when confronted. We should do that a bit more.
	Also, we should not turn a blind eye to the indiscriminate killing of civilians that, in my experience, has been a feature of all American military activity, and is a feature of such action in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I noticed the other day that even President Karzai of Afghanistan—there is no more loyal ally of the US—spoke out about the indiscriminate nature of American military activity.
	I am glad that we worked hard to rescue the half-dozen or so British citizens who were interned at Guantanamo Bay. However, some people who have been resident in Britain for a very long time—not citizens—are also there. We have no legal obligation to help retrieve them, but we have a moral obligation to do what we can, not least because I think that our security services may have had something to do with getting them into Guantanamo Bay in the first place. I hope that we will continue to pursue those cases.
	I am also concerned at increasing reports about a secret gulag into which terrorist suspects disappear. They are being ghosted round the world and, in some cases, torture is contracted out to third countries. Egypt and Syria have been mentioned. Some of these people are completely innocent and appear again looking dazed and confused nine months later without any question of due process having taken place. We should not turn a blind eye to that, and I believe that the Americans have a word for it.

David Davies: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). He obviously has a huge knowledge of African affairs and I hope that it is put to good use by the Government. However, I would not be so bold, as a new Member, to suggest what that should be.
	It is a great honour to rise to speak as the newly elected Member of Parliament for Monmouth. I do so knowing that Monmouth has always enjoyed representatives of the highest calibre. Huw Edwards, my immediate predecessor, was very well known for his pleasant disposition and for his very hard work as a constituency Member of Parliament. Over the years on many occasions, we shared platforms—he as the Labour Member of Parliament, I as the Conservative Member of the Welsh Assembly—but both representing the same constituency and, more often than not, both on the same side. I commend the way that he was always willing to put aside any personal political differences to work for the good of the local community.
	Both Huw Edwards and the other main candidate, Phil Hobson, the Liberal Democrat mayor of Chepstow, fought the campaign with dignity and courtesy. It is my belief that both are clearly motivated by a love of the area in which we all live and a desire to better the lives of those who live there.
	Previous MPs for Monmouth also distinguished themselves: Roger Evans, as a Social Security Minister; Sir John Stradling Thomas, as deputy Chief Whip; the right hon. Donald Anderson, who chaired the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs; and Lord Thorneycroft who was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot possibly hope to match that array of achievements but, if in four years or so, I am thought of as a good constituency Member, I shall feel that I have achieved a great deal. One thing that all of us have had in common is a desire and a commitment to better the lives of all those who live in the constituency.
	Although it is called the Monmouth constituency, it is much more than the market town from which it takes its name. Years ago, it was a sizeable part of south-east Wales. These days, the constituency is still large and includes of the towns of Abergavenny, Usk, Croesyceiliog, Raglan and Tintern as well as countless other small villages and great swathes of countryside.
	As a border county, it is rich in both history and historians. Geoffrey of Monmouth chronicled the Arthurian legends in the 12th century and Adam of Usk gave us graphic accounts of the battles of Owain Glyndwr. Glyndwr was a Welsh landowner who fell out with King Richard II in about 1400, and much of the county was laid to waste by the battles that subsequently raged throughout as he tried to set up an independent republic of Wales. That early brush with devolution seems to have had a lasting impact on the population, as they voted overwhelmingly against a Welsh Assembly.
	Some 130 years after Glyndwr's disappearance, Henry VIII caused further problems when he decided to embark on an early form of local government reorganisation. Deciding that Monmouthshire was more prosperous than the rest of Wales—a mistake that, unhappily, continues to be made today—he decided to make it part of the Oxford court assizes while the rest of Wales remained a separate area for judicial purposes. Official documents, including some that emanated from the House over the years, then began to refer to "Wales and Monmouthshire", which gave rise to the belief that the county was actually a part of England and that its supposed annexation into Wales after the 1974 boundary changes clarified the situation was nothing more than a conspiracy to drag the inhabitants back into the Principality of Wales from England. By the way, some of those people have already been in contact with me looking for surgery dates, which should be interesting.
	The belief in Monmouth's prosperity continues to be widely yet incorrectly held. Like many other rural areas, Monmouth has suffered significant problems over the years, some of which were local, with others more national. I certainly want to use my role to fight on many local issues. I will fight for a new livestock market, which will be needed when the old one in Abergavenny closes down, a new river bank defence scheme to protect us from another outbreak of the disastrous flooding that occurred in Monmouth a few years ago, and to improve the regeneration of Chepstow by sorting out its traffic management problems. Of course, I am also upset about recent legislation that has undermined the fallen livestock collection service and threatened the viability of many farms. I might return to that subject when we are allowed to be more controversial.
	There are many small schools throughout my constituency, such as Ponthir, Llanover and Llanelly Hill, that face closure irrespective of their academic results. Last year, Ponthir school had the best standard assessment test results of any school in the borough of Torfaen, yet the local education authority still wants to slam shut the school gates for ever.
	Although the agriculture and tourism industries on which we depend so much have suffered, especially as a result of foot and mouth, great strides have been made in developing the specialist food industry. Abergavenny Fine Foods exports cheese all over the world, while Brooks Dairies makes what I think is the best ice cream I have ever tasted—by the way, it did not sponsor my campaign in any way.
	Many people are employed in manufacturing industry if not actually in my constituency, just on the outskirts. Such companies include what I remember as Lucas Girlings, for which I worked, although it is now called Verity. The success or failure of those industries depends greatly on developing a foreign policy that allows Britain to trade freely with the rest of the world and, dare I say it, does not necessarily depend on us tying ourselves into an economic straitjacket with other countries in the EU.
	As we are debating defence, may I take this opportunity to commend the R Mon Royal Engineers, who have been active over the past year or so rebuilding Iraq? What is remarkable about the work of the Royal Engineers—many of its members live in the town of Monmouth—is that the people are all volunteers and members of the Territorial Army. However, when the call came, they were happy to give up their jobs and go out to risk their lives rebuilding Iraq. I know that there are differences of opinion about the war, but whatever we might think about it, surely we can commend the people who give up nine-to-five jobs to go to Iraq and try to help the people who live there.
	Back home, of course, those people and other constituents have been exercised by the recent council tax rises, which have added to the problems of people in rural areas who buy their own homes. Council tax in Monmouthshire has risen by about 130 per cent. over the past five years, which has happened because we use a formula that does not properly take account of the cost of delivering services in rural areas and because all too often the Welsh Assembly imposes extra burdens on local authorities, such as the teachers' work load agreement, without properly funding them.
	The recent rebanding exercise that has taken place in Wales—it will soon follow in England—has added to our woes. Some 40 per cent. of properties in Monmouthshire have gone up by at least one band, but many have gone up by two or even three. A one-band increase means a 25 per cent. rise overnight. However, a sum equal to the extra money collected by local authorities is being withheld by the Welsh Assembly from the local government settlement, which means, in simple terms, that people are paying more, but will not see an extra penny spent on local services. I hope that the House will learn from the mistakes of the Welsh Assembly, especially before it gives any consideration to giving the Assembly extra powers.
	I hope that we will learn from what has happened with council tax and the effect that that has had on the affordability of homes. By reducing the burden of council tax, we could increase the opportunity of home ownership—nothing could be more important to any of us than that. A nation in which home ownership is limited to only the wealthy is a nation divided.
	I became involved in politics because I believed passionately that we must try to end divisions in society and help to build a cohesive society. We should have a society in which all of us have an equal chance to get on, with an equal chance to get into the best schools and universities, to hold a rewarding job and to own our own homes. Regardless of the differences that I am sure that I will have with Labour Members over the years, I believe that we should all be working for that vision. That belief is certainly as strong on this side of the House today as it was in the days of Disraeli. It is as relevant in the back streets of my home town of Newport as it is in the bistros of Notting Hill. For as long as I continue to serve as the Member of Parliament for Monmouth, I shall fight locally for my constituents and nationally to create the cohesive, one-nation society in which all have the chance to succeed.

Peter Luff: It would be nice to have Sir Patrick Cormack back with us in a few weeks.
	The tests that we apply to a Queen's Speech are all different and personal, and I have four: does it enhance the freedom, security and prosperity of the subject; does it enhance our democracy; does it bring benefit to individual constituents, in this case those in Worcestershire; and does it contribute to a fairer and safer world, which is especially pertinent to today's debate? Let us first consider freedom, security and prosperity. I sometimes think that the only freedom in which the Government and Prime Minister believe is their freedom to be the Government and Prime Minister and that they believe that all other freedoms should bow down in abasement to that. That is sad because after the election that we have had, some humility is called for from all three major parties. Labour actually lost the popular vote in England, and only one in five voters supported it throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Labour received the smallest vote share of a winning party. It is true that it has a majority in this place, but in my view it has no mandate.
	Similarly, after a carefully targeted campaign, my party delivered a welcome increase in seats and, as we heard from those maiden speeches, we have some excellent new Members of Parliament. We have to be honest, however. Our vote share hardly increased at all, but had we managed an extra 1 per cent. or so on top of that smaller share, think how much smaller Labour's majority would have been.
	The Liberal Democrats enjoyed moderate success, with a few new seats, but in the face of a spectacularly unpopular Prime Minister—those of us who were on the doorsteps know just how unpopular this Prime Minister has become—and despite being the only party to oppose the Iraq war, which is now also unpopular, although it was not at the time, they still could not get close to the vote share the equivalent party enjoyed at the height of the powers of Baroness Thatcher.
	All three parties have lessons to learn. I was disappointed not to see more humility from the Prime Minister yesterday. He said:
	"Let me gently remind"
	my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition,
	"however, which party won and which lost the election. He has 197 MPs. We have 256, and I stand here and he sits there."
	That is rather like the football manager—I speak as a supporter of Chelsea football club, so this is a poignant comment—who celebrates a massive victory as a result of a goal that has been disallowed.
	The Prime Minister went on to say:
	"the Conservative party did not just lose the election—they lost the argument in the course of the election."
	Of course, our real tragedy is that we won the argument many years ago, but that is not entirely apparent to many Labour Members, as I think the Prime Minister will discover during the course of this Parliament. He also said:
	"The oddest thing about the election was that we were more interested in discussing Tory policy than the Tories were."—[Official Report, 17 May 2005; Vol. 434, c. 44.]
	We wanted to discuss the policies that we actually had rather than the policies of the Prime Minister's febrile imagination.
	What does the Queen's Speech say about freedom? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe talked about some of the dangers inherent in the forthcoming prevention of terrorism Act. There are dangers, too, in the identity cards Bill, as we know. The Government talk about taking measures to address the pensions crisis—a crisis of their own creation. Perhaps if the Bank of England's independence is this Government's greatest achievement, its worst legacy is the crisis in pensions. What about prosperity? There was no mention in the Queen's Speech of the Government's fiscal plans—their plans for taxation—but I think that we can guess exactly what third-term Labour tax increases we are likely to see.
	The second test is that of democracy. Many Members on both sides of the House have said this and have nodded in agreement when others have said it, and it is worth saying again: there are too many Bills in the Queen's Speech to enable proper scrutiny. That is of great concern. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South was right to say that previous Governments have needed to rewrite Bills in Committee, but at least the timetabling—or the lack of it—of those Committees enabled that process to take place. Sadly, Bills are now rushed through this place in a scandalous hurry and it is left to the other place to put right the massive deficiencies in legislation. I view with concern the Government's tentative proposals to reform the House of Lords. I do not think that they understand what an important job it does in serving British democracy.
	For someone who says that there are too many Bills, it is perhaps a bit odd to say that I want an extra one, but as I said in my intervention on the Minister for Europe, we should have two Bills on the European constitution and the referendum, not one. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe might cast his vote in a slightly different way from how I cast mine, but we should have the right to express our views differently on the ratification of the treaty and the merits of a referendum. It is utterly unacceptable for the Government to muddle those two issues in the way that they intend.
	Of course, the other important Bill is the one that belatedly, and, sadly, probably inadequately, seeks to restore some dignity and integrity to the voting system of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Government's refusal to embrace individual voter registration is bewildering. Their reason is that when it was applied in Northern Ireland, it led to a reduction in electoral rolls. Well, we probably needed to reduce the electoral rolls in Northern Ireland because that was part of the problem. It is crucial that votes cast at elections are cast with complete integrity and certainty. The Government's proposals, although welcome, fall well short of what is needed to re-establish faith in our democratic system.
	Let us consider our constituencies, such as Worcestershire. There is a passing reference in the Queen's Speech to
	"sustainable development and supporting rural services",
	although I think that that boils down to a new quango that muddies the roles of existing quangos. There is nothing significant on the problems of agriculture and horticulture; nothing on fairer funding for shire counties such as Worcestershire, which has been left badly behind in terms of schools and other public services; nothing on the impact of the Licensing Act 2003 on village halls and shops, a problem that I shall return to during this Parliament; nothing on the planning law and travellers, who in my constituency make a mockery of the planning system, something on which the Government's response is inadequate; and nothing to reverse the draconian and illiberal ban on hunting or to address animal welfare rather than class prejudice. In short, there is nothing much for rural shires at all. It is a very thin Queen's Speech, indeed, when viewed from a constituency perspective.
	Today's debate, however, is about international affairs and defence. Again, I am genuinely surprised—this relates to the fourth test of whether the measures will build a fairer and safer world—by the apparent lack of detail and vision on those subjects. I got no sense that the Government deeply and genuinely understand the huge challenges and opportunities that face us in a globalised and fast-changing world. Although there are many aspects to that, I want to deal with just two of them: our relationship to India and our policies in relation to overseas development.
	I choose India because it offers a huge opportunity for Britain, but we are not being ambitious enough and not talking about it enough. British business is not taking it sufficiently seriously. I also choose international development because it is, ultimately, the great moral challenge that we face as a nation. Of course, poverty lies at the heart of so much international instability. It has also dominated the debate so far.
	On India, I have declared my interests in the register and have been a frequent visitor to the country in recent years. I endorse what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) said about the structure of the Security Council. It reflects the environment of many years ago and not the realities of a post-cold war 21st century, so we should not have much faith in it. I look forward to India's early membership of the Security Council.
	To be fair, I know that the Government launched a comprehensive strategic partnership with India in September last year. That charts a genuinely ambitious course for the relationship between our two democracies—the oldest and the largest in the world. I hope that the Government are putting their money where their mouth was last September and are giving serious thought to implementation of the partnership's key provisions. I am not clear that they are because the strategic partnership, of which the two Prime Ministers rightly spoke, needs to be built.
	Let us consider some specific things on which progress is not being made in the way that it should be. The joint declaration pledged to energise collaboration in science and technology. Other countries are already doing that and moving much faster to establish contacts with India to take advantage of its knowledge economy. For example, United States companies have set up Indian research and development centres, and research there often outclasses work in the parent country. What is the British Government doing to encourage innovative methods for collaboration in science and technology, and to ensure that we as a nation benefit from that emerging resource?
	On education, there has been a 400 per cent. increase in the number of Indian students in UK universities over the past four years. We derive huge benefits from their presence. In recognition of the value that students bring to economies, other countries have responded more generously than us. The United States has eased visa formalities and provides financial support to encourage the trend, because it recognises that both countries benefit from it.
	What are we doing? We are making it more expensive for students even to have their visas renewed. Perhaps more worryingly, under the voluntary vetting scheme, Indian students are potentially barred from courses in science and technology, subjects on which they have, perhaps, the highest aptitudes. Do the Government have plans to encourage foreign students from India to come to Britain for higher education?
	On medicine, India has world-class medical facilities—I know because I have seen them—and biotechnology and pharmaceutical strengths that would surprise many in this country. Given our strength in those sectors, we should be an ideal partner. That was a major feature of the New Delhi declaration during the Prime Minister's visit to India back in January 2002, and it was reiterated last September. The Governments agreed that they would focus together on key sectors in which we share such world-class expertise. That also relates to information technology. So what are we doing to build on this statement of intent? We have seen the words, but we have not seen the action—a familiar phrase from somewhere in recent weeks.
	The outsourcing of medical facilities, pathological testing and cost-effective drugs could make a huge contribution to the British national health service. We could have joint research in medicine and collaborative ventures between medical institutions, all on a long-term basis, but it does not seem to be happening like it ought to.
	Indian companies, meanwhile, are being harassed when they try to bring in short-term workers to work in many Indian enterprises now active in the UK. As far as I understand it—the Minister may correct me—India has co-operated wholeheartedly with the British authorities on immigration. A memorandum of understanding has been signed on speedy repatriation of immigration offenders and, I believe, India is on the white list of countries for asylum applications. So, it is a little strange that more is not being done to ease the transfer of professional staff between our countries.
	The Government are devising a new points-based system for immigration and work permits, which, as we know, is common ground across the House. However, it seems that several categories of skills needed in the UK, particularly in the IT sector, cannot be included in the system. What are the Government doing to ensure that personnel with such skills, who need to be brought in quickly, are treated as a distinct category so that they and the companies that need them do not suffer from lengthy procedures, long delays and quota limits that a large immigration process necessarily involves? If the economic relationship between our two countries is to develop, it is very important that we have a fluent and smooth exchange of professionals.
	Before I move on, I have a word to say on Kashmir. The way in which Pakistan and India are talking about the future of that troubled part of south Asia is hugely encouraging. It is wonderful to watch the establishment of a bus link, for example. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend would agree that it is wonderful that cricket has played such a part in building relationships between India and Pakistan on the matter. However, it is a matter of some concern to me that the travel advisory is unnecessarily cautious. That is true of many travel advisories issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Within India, tourism to Kashmir is booming, and it would be nice if British tourists were encouraged to make the journey there too. It is a truly fantastic part of the world, as I know from my visit to Srinagar.
	Time is moving on, so I shall be brief and make my final comments on the subject of the developing world. I worry about the debate on the developing world because so much of it is characterised by learned, difficult and arcane debate among experts, who use acronyms, names, functions and conferences which are not easily comprehended by others who take an interest in the issues. In addition, so much of the debate among the campaigners is characterised by excessively simplistic solutions. So perhaps there is room for a third way—a middle way. It is crucial that the debate is engaged in widely.
	There have been many false dawns. I had the privilege of working for Sir Edward Heath in 1980 at the time of the publication of the Brandt report. I remember the huge optimism that swept around the country at that time. It was probably one of the defining moments in the developing understanding among the British people of the need to do more to tackle poverty in the developing world. Only three years later, however, the follow-up report, which was also published by the Brandt commission, struck a much more depressing note.
	So often over the past quarter of a century the story of development issues has been one of two steps forward, one step back—to be optimistic about things. I disagree with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), who said that international issues had dominated the election and had been prevalent in his campaign. Apart from Iraq, I heard very little about development issues. That is probably because there is a healthy consensus across the House on the main issues of aid, trade and debt. That is not new. The issue is less politically charged than it used to be, but with that there is a danger that it will drop from the public consciousness. That must not be allowed to happen.
	My party has made a welcome conversion and made a strong, clear and credible commitment to meeting a target of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product in aid. That is a genuine commitment and I pay tribute to those on the Front Bench who have achieved it. The Government have also taken huge strides in understanding the importance of free and fair trade. I pay tribute to both International Development Secretaries for the way in which they have fought that corner.
	Debt relief is of course also a matter of consensus. I am delighted at the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer—although, it has to be said, not always the Prime Minister—pays tribute to people such as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe and Sir John Major for their work on debt relief. I pay tribute to the way in which the Chancellor has bravely driven forward the issue in international negotiations. That is not always easy, as Britain is often more enlightened on these issues than some of our fellow members of the G8.
	The consensus has largely been driven forward by the campaigners, particularly the Churches, which have done so much to keep the matter up the agenda, and I pay tribute to them. However, it has also been driven occasionally by great international crises. The general response of the British to the tsunami was heartwarming and encouraging, but sadly, dealing with such issues can sometimes lead people to believe that the problems are not so deep-seated and that a one-off contribution at the time of a great crisis will address the fundamentals. That simply is not true.
	The tsunami shocked the world and has had devastating long-term consequences for the people in the countries affected, but invisible tsunamis are sweeping Africa, in particular, every day. Although there is talk about the issue in places, the world does not seem to notice. The matter is not just about AIDS, which is sometimes talked about and which claims six lives a minute on the continent, but about malaria and tuberculosis, as well as malnutrition. A child in Africa is dying every three seconds as a result of hunger or preventable disease. What a scandal that is. The annual death toll from poverty-related diseases is estimated to be about 18 million—a third of all human deaths. That means that, since the end of the cold war, some 270 million people have died unnecessarily.
	I recently read a fascinating article by Thomas Pogg in a journal on ethics. He talked of our need to accept our own part in the continuing scandal of world poverty. He said:
	"It is unthinkable to us that we are actively responsible for this catastrophe. If we were, then we, civilised and sophisticated denizens of the developed countries, would be guilty of the largest crime humanity ever committed, the death toll of which exceeds, every week, that of the recent Tsunami and, every three years, that of World War II, the concentration camps and gulags included."
	He suggested that there are things that we could be doing to address global poverty that we are not doing. Perhaps that unthinkable truth is true after all. We all bear a share of the blame for this disaster.

Joan Ruddock: The hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) has made a wide-ranging speech and I am tempted to follow suit. I agree with him about the campaign to end poverty and pay tribute to the Ministers responsible for the production of the Commission for Africa report. However, I came to the debate intending to concentrate on one country in particular. I make no apology for that, because I think that the country in question requires the continuing attention of the whole international community, and, not least, of this House. That country is Afghanistan, and I am delighted to see the new Minister with responsibility for Afghanistan, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), in his place on the Treasury Bench.
	Both the Queen's Speech and the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe opening today's debate set out the UK Government's continuing commitment to the Government of Afghanistan. Since the Bonn agreements of December 2001, we have been working with the Afghan people to secure their freedom, stability, human rights and democratic government. That has been a herculean task, not least because theirs is a country in which 1 million people died and almost as many were permanently disabled in a series of civil and in some cases internationally backed wars over more than two decades. Almost every major city has been destroyed. Fields were burned, ending all legitimate agriculture. Seven million people were forced to leave their homes and seek refuge elsewhere. State institutions collapsed and justice ceased to exist.
	I commend to the House "A call for justice", a recent report by Afghanistan's independent human rights commission. It describes a national consultation on the lack of justice and the need for transitional justice arrangements in that country. The commission is led by a remarkable woman, Dr. Sima Samar. She and her team have shown enormous courage in travelling throughout the country, facing constant death threats, but engaging with ordinary people to seek their views on how they live now, as victims of all the atrocities that have occurred in their country.
	The past three and a half years have brought some remarkable achievements that demonstrate the courage of the people of Afghanistan, such as those who formed the interim Government, and the commitment of the international community. They have achieved most of the major goals set out in the Bonn agreement, beginning with the emergency Loya Jirga and continuing with the constitutional Loya Jirga and the presidential elections. Reconstruction is under way—millions of children are back in school and millions of refugees are returning from Pakistan and Iran—but I would say that the challenges today outweigh the successes. There is progress in central Government in terms of both organisation and reach throughout the country, but there has been a signal lack of success in local government. There is no powerful mechanism to drive out corruption. Afghans have no trust in their police—with good reason. There is still no effective judicial system and violence is endemic, as can be seen in the outrages that have occurred in many cities in recent weeks and in the targeted attacks on international non-governmental organisations and on women.
	I pay tribute to the work of the NGOs. Although they are usually headed by people from other countries, such as our own, they are almost always staffed by ordinary Afghans, who run constant risks in their daily lives delivering aid and services to the people of Afghanistan. Twenty-four NGO workers were killed last year, and already five have lost their lives this year. I also pay tribute to those who are standing up for organisation and transparency. Through various commissions on the civil service and the judicial system and in the police and army academies, many people are working to introduce the rule of law to Afghanistan.
	There has been considerable success in the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of the huge number of men who carried arms during the decades of war. The UK has been particularly active in this field. No fewer than 50,000 people have successfully gone through the DDR process, but even that enormous achievement is outweighed by the fact that in Afghanistan today, an estimated 150,000 men continue to carry illegal arms and to operate illegally.
	In saying these things, my intention is not to diminish the remarkable achievements since Bonn or to underestimate our Government's considerable commitment and their successes in working with Afghans in various aspects of the redevelopment of their country. I say these things because I believe that Afghanistan is now in a particularly dangerous phase. The country is in the run-up to the parliamentary elections, which, having been twice postponed, are now scheduled to take place on 18 September.
	In addition there are constant calls, especially in the United States, to reduce the scale of the international forces and the American military commitment to Afghanistan. The Afghan people need all the security that they can get. President Karzai has frequently sought an increase both in the numbers of forces and in the international community's commitment. An even greater danger is the possibility that, having succeeded in holding elections, as I hope and believe will happen, the international community will decide that that is a good time to reduce its presence in the country. That will be entirely justified if it is what the Afghan Government want, but I suspect that they will not want that; I suspect that both the Afghan Parliament and the Afghan Government will continue to demand international support. I urge our Government to do all they can to ensure that there is no security vacuum, either before the elections or immediately afterwards.
	Let me now talk about the status of women. After 11 September, we all became familiar with figures in blue burqas flitting across our television screens. The whole world's sympathy went out to Afghan women, who were the most oppressed under the pernicious Taliban regime, and the international community said that women's rights must be restored in Afghanistan. People such as me who stood up to support Afghan women were criticised; it was suggested that we were western feminists who were trying to impose our views on others. I have not met every Afghan woman; I have not even met those who live in the villages of Afghanistan. My contact has been limited to meetings with women from various parts of the country held during two visits to Kabul and here in London. But all the women to whom I have spoken want the same most fundamental and basic human rights for themselves as we women in the west want for ourselves.
	Afghan women want rights. In their case they have, and accept perfectly well, arranged marriages, but they want the right not to be forced into a marriage. They want the right not to be sold by a man to settle a dispute with another man. They want the right for their girl children to go to school. The international community has enabled them to achieve that, for already a third of the children now in school are girls. They also want the right to vote, which they have exercised in the presidential elections. Further, they want the right to be able to work.
	In every way, we need to be mindful of what Afghan women are saying and demanding. We must understand that we in the international community have a duty to support what they want. As recently as last year, in the Berlin declaration—a declaration that was made with international participation, including, obviously, the Afghan Government—this was said:
	"The Government"—
	meaning the Afghan Government—
	"is committed to ensure that its policies and programs promote the participation of women in all sectors of the economy and society and in accordance with their rights in the Constitution. Concrete steps to be taken are to promote increased recruitment and guarantee equal opportunities to women in the Civil Service and to ensure that gender is mainstreamed within all sectors, programs and policies."
	That would be a remarkable achievement for any Government, let alone a Government trying to form a democracy in the difficult circumstances that they face.
	We need to contrast that commitment with the actual state of Afghan women today. To give hon. Members a snapshot, when the population statistics were being assembled in Afghanistan in recent times, we believed that we would find that as a result of the huge loss of men during the war, women would undoubtedly be more than 50 per cent. of the population; they are, of course, more than 50 per cent. of the populations of most developed countries. Yet what we now know is that of 22.2 million Afghans, the proportion of women is only 48.2 per cent. So the incredible haemorrhage of men due to war has been outmatched, or outpaced, by the haemorrhage of women. The life expectancy of men in Afghanistan is only 46; the life expectancy of women is 45. The causes of the deaths of these women—avoidable deaths and premature deaths—are poverty and pregnancy. Afghan women are among the very poorest in the whole world, and Afghanistan has one of the highest rates of maternal mortality. Seventy mothers and 700 children die every day in Afghanistan.
	The hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) spoke of tsunamis in Africa. For Afghanistan, a country with a population of little more than a third of that of this country, that death rate is the equivalent of a tsunami every year. Few Governments in the world prioritise the needs of women unless women themselves demand their human rights, and that is what Afghan women have been doing since 11 September, and what they are continuing to do today. That has been under the leadership first, of Dr. Sima Samar, then Habiba Sorabi and now Massouda Jalal.
	Massouda Jalal took it into her head—I do not know how, although I have had many conversations with her, because I have not asked, "How did you think of doing this because it is so utterly extraordinary?"—that she would stand up for Afghan women by contesting the presidential elections, and she was a candidate in those elections. She did better than some of the men. Obviously President Karzai was elected, and he had the generosity to make her his Minister of Women's Affairs.
	Women participated in that election to the extent of 40 per cent. That was a remarkable achievement, and one that we all hope will continue into the parliamentary elections. Sixty-eight of the 249 seats that will comprise the lower house of the national assembly are reserved for women. How are those women going to get into those 68 seats? There will be few women in this place who will not appreciate that it is more difficult for women to achieve parliamentary office than it is for men. Often the task is more difficult in practical terms because women have family responsibilities and often do not have the same incomes or spending money as men to pursue a political career. How much more so will that be true in Afghanistan.
	I am glad to say that the international community is already addressing that issue. I pay tribute again to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, which is making great efforts, not only by taking overall responsibility for the elections in Afghanistan but by addressing the particular concerns and needs of women voters and raising voter involvement while stressing, importantly, the secrecy of the ballot box. It is also making great efforts to provide support for women, especially the security that they require if they are to be campaigners. The EU and the UK Government are participating in such programmes.
	When I was last in Kabul in March, I was delighted to be involved, as I had been earlier, in the British Council programme, which is encouraging women, particularly in the most recent workshops that it organised in Kabul and the video conference that was held between Washington, London and Kabul. It engaged with about 12 or 15 women, who had decided already that they would put themselves forward as candidates for the election. I was delighted to engage with them too, and to hear something that I think is well worth quoting from Massouda Jalal. During the video conference, she said:
	"Values that underpin democracy—such as equality—are deeply rooted in Islam. Islam has much to tell us about social justice—and it teaches about the rights and duties of women as well as of men."
	There can be no doubt that Afghan women wish to participate in the elections. They want to get elected. They need all the help that we can give them. There are already more women registered than the 68 needed for the reserved seats. The Minister with responsibility for women has made clear the extent to which they will need support, not only in being able to campaign effectively and get elected, but after the election.
	For those who are not aware of what has happened, I should say something about the election system. A single non-transferable vote system has been adopted—a system used in very few countries in the world. It is supposed to favour individuals but may in effect favour organised groupings dependent on warlords and the drugs trade. None the less, that is the system that has been adopted, and the one in which candidates will have to compete. The system is particularly disadvantageous to women. Without a party organisation to support them, and standing as individuals, they will be especially disadvantaged, not least in terms of finance, organisation and the ability to travel. If women are to be elected to the Parliament, they will need further help which men might be able to do without.
	We all come to this place with the means of running offices. We can provide ourselves with accommodation. We can travel back to our constituencies. All that will be essential for Afghan parliamentarians if the Afghan Parliament is to work at all. It will be extremely difficult to make it work anyway. For women who do not have a rich husband, there will be no means of providing themselves with all those facilities and being able to be a proper representative of their people, unless the international community engages with this topic. The Afghan Government do not have the means to provide that support. Many of the women who are standing are widows, and these women face an even greater disadvantage.
	In conclusion, there is a need for security during and after the election, and for support packages for Afghan Members of Parliament. We must try to ensure that they have the opportunity to make their democracy work. On 21 June there will be a donor conference in London. Again, I congratulate the Government on the commitment that they have demonstrated by organising that conference. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will ensure that it is not gender-blind. It is extremely important that the donations, programmes and policies that receive support take account of women's needs. Election funding is critical. UNAMA says that the budget to run the elections is $50 million short, and one third of the money that is needed has not yet been raised.
	There is therefore much to do before we can proceed further with reconstruction and the development of a fully fledged and legal economy. While I look forward to economic development, I hope that regard will be paid to the worth of women. Very often, the work that Afghan women do at home in the production of handicrafts and carpets, or as farmers in the fields, is not counted when policies are devised with the support of western advisers. I hope that that our Ministers will deal with that—and we have just been joined by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, who is very much concerned with support for Afghanistan in general and women in particular.
	Without justice for women there is no rule of law. Without the education and empowerment of women, families will always remain in poverty. Without the political participation of women there will be no real democracy in Afghanistan, and if it should fail again, that will be a failure of the whole international community.

Patrick Mercer: We have heard so far today three extremely capable and erudite maiden speeches. I can only look back to four years ago when I made mine and wish that I had had the same confidence, ability and general articulacy as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Rogerson) has. I am extremely impressed by his maiden speech and I have absolutely no doubt that he will bring to the House exactly the same capabilities and erudition as the man whom he has replaced. I would like to say welcome to him. His part of the country is absolutely beautiful. It is a long way from Newark, where I come from, but none the less we are extremely pleased to have this gentleman in the House.
	I come now to the subject of the debate today, which is foreign affairs and defence. We have heard a couple of extremely trenchant views, particularly on affairs in Iraq, and I want to take issue with some of the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Kenneth Clarke), another Nottinghamshire Member of Parliament, referred to there having been a number of false dawns in Iraq, a phrase he used extremely well.
	It is worth remembering that after the successful completion of the election there, the level of violence fell of quite considerably. It is also worth remembering that as soon as the new Government were appointed, the level of violence rose most horribly. Despite the fact that Iraq now no longer dominates the front pages of our newspapers, or is the subject of the leading items of our evening television news programmes, the fact remains that literally hundreds of people a week are dying inside Iraq, and that the insurgency has a new urgency, a new violence and a new direction. It is much more focused. Instead of United States soldiers dying in their dozens and United Kingdom soldiers dying in ones and twos, we are now seeing particular elements of both Sunni and Shi'a populations dying in swathes. For instance, in Tikrit over the past month, 30 barbers have been targeted and killed. They have committed the primary sin of shaving the beards of those who no longer wish to be fundamentalists, and they have paid the price.
	I could go on, but there is little doubt that Iraq continues to be a running sore. Because our boys are not coming home in body bags in any large numbers, because peace does not seem to be quite so urgent an issue now as it was before the election, that does not mean that swathes of people are not dying, for a cause about which I have many, many doubts. Having said that, I make no doubt at all about the fact that I voted for the war. I voted for it with reservations; none the less I voted for it. Therefore I and every other Member of the House who voted for the war have a responsibility to see that the situation in which we now find ourselves is carried through with dignity and courage to a proper conclusion. That is why I worry very much not only about the comments made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, but about Government defence policy. Sadly, there are no Defence Ministers on the Treasury Front Bench. I hope that those Ministers who are present will be kind enough to pass on my views.
	It concerns me that we are talking about a timed withdrawal from Iraq. It concerns me that we are talking about following in the wake of the United States; that whatever policies they have and whatever political agenda they set, American timelines will dominate and ensure that British troops move according to their diktat, not to ours.
	It concerns me that we do not seem to have grasped the essential element of what is going on in Iraq. Large areas of the country are now peaceful. Any Members who have visited the country will know that. One can drive for many hundreds of miles without being conscious of any violence whatever, apart perhaps from the wreckage left behind after the Iran-Iraq war some decades ago. But some provinces are every bit as bad as they were when the invasion first occurred, and in some areas they are worse.
	In my experience, one reason why people continue to revolt and to give succour, aid and military assistance to Islamist Jihadists who are coming into the country is the fact that reconstruction, rebuilding and aid are not progressing fast enough. There is no indigenous security force to speak of, and the police force and the army have not been rebuilt successfully because so many of them are killed before they can be recruited or trained, and many of them are so terrified of the prospect of serving their country that the numbers of policemen and soldiers are simply inadequate.
	It is clear to me that if we wish rebuilding in all its aspects to continue, from equality for women, through education, through to the security sector at the other end of the spectrum, we in the west must continue to ensure that there is some form of security present. Money that is being dedicated cannot be spent if the non-governmental organisations and other bodies on the ground who will carry out the reconstruction are simply too scared or incapable of doing so because of the danger. Sadly, that means that troops must be present. Sadly too, that means that Iraqi indigenous forces must be trained in such a way that they are numerous enough to look after themselves when they have to take the field.
	Yes, of course Britain must be looking for a time when her troops, treasure and money can be drawn down; when our boys can be brought home. But I urge the Government to understand and to honour the words of the Minister—that we must wait until the job is done. That is why I am so puzzled about one particular element of our defence policy, which is now widely known, and that is that the majority of our forces in Iraq will shortly be withdraw to bolster the garrison in Afghanistan. I draw particular attention to the speech made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), which was not only excellent, but touched closely and clearly on the problems in Afghanistan. The fact remains that we simply do not have enough troops to garrison Afghanistan and to continue garrisoning Iraq. Harsh decisions must be made by Ministers. This year we will see the withdrawal of the Polish forces, our close allies, in multinational division central. They will withdraw and that will leave a gap for us to cover. Our American allies expect us to cover that gap, but will we do so? Do we have enough troops to take on that commitment and to allow the Americans to start their drawdown in the north? Do we have the political bottle to operate outside the Basra area? Do we have the courage to make the right commitment to the Iraqi police and the Iraqi army to make sure that that nation can stand on its own two feet? I wonder.
	I am particularly puzzled by the decision, which appears already to have been made, to move large numbers of our troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. If we had more troops, it might make sense; if we do not have the troops, it cannot be done. I am extremely interested to hear how the Minister intends magically to create extra resources in order to conduct both of those tasks simultaneously.
	While we plan to deploy the headquarters of the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps to Afghanistan and to maintain large numbers of troops in Iraq, we must examine the conditions of service for men serving in both of those theatres extremely carefully. To reduce the discussion from the strategic level to the tactical level, the Minister should be clear about the effect that the Trooper Williams case has had on every man who carries a rifle with live ammunition. In the Trooper Williams case, the judgment of a commanding officer—in that case, of the Royal Tank Regiment—under the Army Act 1992 was overturned in court, which means that no soldier can depend on the judgment and protection of officers who have seen soldiers in action and who understand the circumstances in which such difficulties have occurred. To overturn the judgment of a commanding officer is, at a stroke, to destroy Tommy Atkins' confidence in the officers who lead him.
	How can the Government send troops on operations and make some of them redundant when those troops are facing this country's enemies? The Army is currently gapping 190 majors' posts, so why have the Government decided to make 180 such officers redundant? Why have some of those officers received that news when they are facing this nation's enemies? I could go on.
	After regiments return from Iraq, they start operational training to deploy to either Afghanistan or Northern Ireland within four months. Many career courses inside the Army are now under-subscribed because non-commissioned officers and junior officers are seeking to spend more time with their families rather than qualifying themselves for further promotion. That situation is unprecedented in the Army, and the Ministers must examine it urgently.
	When soldiers go to places such as Afghanistan and Iraq in order to re-establish democracy, they should not find that their own Government have disfranchised them from this country's general election. A considerable number of servicemen failed to vote in the past general election, and I have no doubt that the Minister will try to address that problem, because it is deeply demoralising for soldiers to find that they cannot influence their own Government.
	If one has served in the countries that I have described, it is difficult to face the disbandment of one's own regiment on one's return to this country. There has been a lot of talk that the regimental system is unimportant—the previous Secretary of State for Defence said that his local county regiment was "looking forward" to being scrapped—but it is utter nonsense. The regimental system has served us well, and it continues to serve us well. It would be an error to tinker with it, and it would not make sense to turn it on its head.
	A reduction in current numbers of infantryman while, yet again, the Army faces a recruitment crisis, does not make sense. If, at the behest of Ministers, the Ministry of Defence intends to move large numbers of combat soldiers from Iraq to Afghanistan, there will be no room to remove four combat battalions.
	The next few months will be extremely challenging as the problem in Iraq unfolds and evolves. If the Government are serious about pursuing a noble cause in Iraq and supporting the Iraqi people in their move towards freedom and independence, our troops and armed forces must be properly supported, manned and resourced. The Government cannot give a bad deal to the men and women whom they choose to put their lives on the line. The situation must not be allowed to continue, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.

Michael Moore: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who has certainly enlivened our debate. He said at the outset that he had been given three bits of advice, and taking two out of three was not bad in the circumstances.
	It was clear from some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, particularly those about Europe, that we will not always agree with one another, but I do agree with what he said about the beauty of Antrim and his constituency. I was born in Dundonald, my family are from Donaghadee, and I still have many relatives in Northern Ireland. Last year I took my wife to Northern Ireland for her first visit. We experienced the delights of the Donaghadee lighthouse and toured around old haunts. It was a pleasure to take her to Antrim, although, after the rather dreich weather, she will have to hear the hon. Gentleman's tourism pitch before I can persuade her to go back.
	It has been an interesting debate. The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), who is now not in his place, gave a careful analysis of the defence arena. I do not necessarily agree with everything that he said, as will become obvious, but like him I pay tribute to the quality of the speeches from those making their maiden contributions, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Rogerson). Like him, I pay tribute to his predecessor, Paul Tyler. I am delighted that he will soon, we hope, be in another place to continue his contribution to Parliament. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) made an early bid for a note in the Whips' notebook with some of his comments about the issues in the Government's programme about which he is concerned. Although I did not hear every part of it, as I nipped out of the Chamber briefly, the contribution by the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) illustrated that he will be a strong contributor to the House. I wish him and the others every success.
	This is clearly not my maiden speech but, at the election, I discovered myself fighting a substantially altered seat in the Scottish borders. Just as right hon. and hon. Members had got the hang of Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, the boundary commission vandalised it all and I am now pleased to represent the seat of Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, where I count among my important constituents the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I do not know whether he counts his home near Jedburgh as his first or second home, but he knows the area well and will understand why I regard it as a great privilege to be able to represent all Sir Archy Kirkwood's old seat, while retaining part of my old seat around Selkirkshire.
	May I, in the manner of maiden speeches, pay tribute to Sir Archy, who, like Paul Tyler, will, I hope, soon be in another place. He was well respected in the House as a fair and impressive Chairman of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions over the previous two Parliaments. Behind the scenes, he was an important character in the House of Commons Commission and in many other aspects of Westminster life. He regularly says that he has been in this institution as a man and boy, for over 30 years. I am delighted that he will have the opportunity to continue to contribute to parliamentary life in the House of Lords in due course, and it is a great honour to be able to succeed him in his old seat.
	The hon. Member for Newark took issue with some of the comments by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) about the situation in Iraq. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's analysis, much of which I share. He is in danger of oversimplifying the situation as we have put it forward. We believe that now is the appropriate moment to make it clear what the exit strategy is to be in Iraq. We believe that the end of the United Nations authority under the existing resolution at the end of this year offers a clear target which we can aim for to begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq, but we accept that there are key issues to do with security there. As my right hon. and learned Friend made clear, we accept that there are severe difficulties in the provision of services in Iraq. The way people live day-to-day in that country is a terrible way to exist. Clearly, we have an ongoing responsibility to the country to ensure that those services and, above all, the security situation improve but, beyond all else, we must stop being part of the problem. We have not provided the solution that was expected or that was claimed would be provided. We must make it clear that we will do our bit to ensure that we develop that solution.

Michael Moore: I have set out already, as the right hon. And learned Gentleman was listening very carefully, the fact that there are some key factors in determining what would be the appropriate moment, but we think that unless we make it clear that we support and will deliver a phased withdrawal of our troops, the continued insurgency and the growth in the strength of opposition to the coalition forces will get worse.
	In the past few years we have witnessed a rapidly changing world, from a situation where the cold war dominated our military thinking to a situation that changed out of all recognition after the tragedy of 9/11. But in that period between the end of the cold war and 9/11 we had the terrible situation in Rwanda, and nearby, on our own European doorstep, in Bosnia. Our previous assumptions about the security situation in the world were turned on their head and the precariousness of our world security was illustrated in so many different ways.
	The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) highlighted the ongoing difficulties in Afghanistan. In the past few weeks we have seen the focus shift to Uzbekistan, and we all now live in an era of greater uncertainty perhaps than at any stage in the past, complicated by the existence and growth of international terrorism and an increasing realisation that the number of failed states in the world is growing, with instability arising due to scarce natural resources and the poverty from which many countries cannot escape.
	Above all else, we are rightly concerned about the risks of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In recent years there has been a flurry of different responses from the Government reflecting those rapidly changing circumstances, with the strategic defence review, the new chapter, and the White Paper in December 2003, accompanied as it was by the Foreign Office's own White Paper, which highlighted among other things the need to ensure that the United Kingdom was safer from global terrorism and WMD, that we focused on an international system based on the rule of law, and that we created an effective European Union in a secure neighbourhood. The ongoing difficulties in the Balkans, in particular, emphasised the importance of that. We have been broadly supportive of that approach and shared the analysis, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife said earlier.
	We have strong defence and armed forces in this country. That is partly as a legacy of our role in the world over the last century, and also in support of our important position at the United Nations, which places upon us special responsibilities. Collective security and the proper functioning of a system of international law are all vital to us and it is important that Britain plays its part in that, not least because British interests across the globe are substantial.
	The current broad position of the defence forces in this country has always allowed us to be in a position to carry out expeditionary work across the world, and we support that, while recognising that stabilisation and a response to emergencies are growing features of demands on our armed forces. That requires a certain level of public expenditure and we broadly support the level committed to defence at present, but we do recognise that there is an ongoing need for reform and modernisation. We do, however, continue to question the reduction in the number of battalions in the Army and the misjudged abolition of the regiments, not least in Scotland. Nobody doubts the wisdom of strengthening the support and logistics for the Army or of reforming the arms plot, but we still question whether this is the time to be cutting back on the front line of battalions, on the basis of big assumptions about the situation in Northern Ireland and the scale of our ongoing demands in Iraq. When we add to the mixture the extra demands placed on our armed forces for homeland security, that is surely something the Government should be rethinking.
	As a plea for the regiments, I wish to make a local point to the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence. If we cannot persuade him to rethink his proposals, will he at least look again at the proposed name of the King's Own Scottish Borders and Royal Scots Battalion within the new Royal Scottish Regiment? The proposed name has absolutely no support in the south of Scotland that I can find and has sought to keep both historic names without, I suspect, finding a solution that is acceptable to the Army or to those who support the traditions and regiments in localities such as those that I represent.
	The United Kingdom rarely acts alone. A core assumption runs through defence White Papers and Government foreign policy that we will operate in coalitions informally or through alliances. We remain strong supporters of NATO. We also wish to see the development of the European security and defence policy. We do not believe that those are mutually contradictory or inconsistent; they ought to be complementary. We are encouraged to see the way in which European Union forces have begun to operate together in places such as Macedonia. We should not be choosing between those alliances but working with both.
	One of this afternoon's themes has been the risk of proliferation. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) made a heartfelt plea, as he did during the previous Parliament, about the need to focus attention on the review conference for the non-proliferation treaty. This is a serious time for us, with concerns about the existence of nuclear weapons in India, Pakistan, Israel and elsewhere and with the threat that other countries, such as North Korea and Iran, might obtain the technology to enable them to create nuclear weapons.
	We have a major responsibility at that conference, and as minds are concentrated on the difficulties in Iran and North Korea, we hope that all the existing nuclear powers will take the opportunity to lower the tension about the need for nuclear weapons, as some countries see it, and ensure that we make strong strides towards global disarmament. Without that, we run the risk of uncontrolled proliferation occurring.
	We have supported the Government's efforts so far. I pay tribute to them for the disarmament that they have undertaken in recent years. We remain committed to a minimum United Kingdom nuclear deterrent, but we recognise that, as Ministers flagged up before the election, one of the big issues that we will face in this Parliament is the beginning of the debate about what might succeed the existing Trident missile system.
	We are extremely well served by the men and women who make up our armed forces in this country. As we debate these matters in the House and take decisions about what should happen in Britain's name and about committing the armed forces to conflict, as we did on Iraq, we must never lose sight of their bravery and professionalism and the debt that we owe them. Hon. Members on both sides of the House can agree that we are well served by them, and that it is important that we continue to have strong armed forces in this country.

John Reid: We agreed on some things, which may come as a surprise, not least to those on the Labour Benches. She was a fantastic advocate for her constituency and her beliefs and principles. Therefore, it is with respect that we remember the contribution that she made.
	Substantial contributions have been made, too, by many returning Members. I will try to deal with some of the points that they raised out of respect for their passion and their insights. May I start with Kosovo, which was of considerable interest to Alice Mahon and which was raised by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), among others. The international community has made it clear continually and again recently that Kosovo has to demonstrate its ability to meet expected standards of a civilised society across a range of areas before we can begin to address the issue of status. It is hoped that the United Nations review of standards in Kosovo will take place this summer. It is imminent and preparations are under way. A successful review of standards in Kosovo would enable the international community to address Kosovo's future status, so the first and most immediate issue on the agenda is to make that assessment of standards.
	The remainder of 2005 will therefore be a challenging time in Kosovo and NATO must and will stand ready to meet any security challenges that arise out of that. The United Kingdom will play its full part in that, as normal, and through the provision of a small but effective UK contribution we can play a larger role in ensuring a safe and secure environment in Kosovo.

John Reid: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may not be surprised to know that I have not seen that report, because I was on a troop flight back from Iraq earlier today, just before I came to the House. I will check on that. I think that he mentioned negotiation. To my knowledge, I do not think that that has started. The sequence of events is as follows. The first thing to be done is to carry out the United Nations review and assessment of the standards in Kosovo itself; thereafter discussions will be widened. Whether or not preliminary talks are started and whether or not those are part of ongoing discussions between the United States or the United Nations elements in Serbia and Montenegro I do not know, but I will check on that and if he will permit me, I will write to him, because I am not in a position to comment on reports in the past few hours. What I am in a position to say is that, in Kosovo, NATO has continued to improve the flexibility and usability of troops since the violence there in March 2004. A lot of progress has been made, but all nations continue to press for further improvements. That is the present position.
	I want to comment on a point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge on the original intervention in Kosovo. I would not want to set a precedent that we continue to follow in protecting the Lib Dems against unfair criticism—or any criticism at all—but in this case he unfairly criticised the Lib Dems for what he regarded as an inconsistency between their support for intervention in Kosovo and their later support for intervention in Iraq. In fairness, we should recognise that there are several major grounds on which military intervention can take place. One is obviously self-defence and another is impending humanitarian catastrophe, which was the case in Kosovo. A third, of course, is United Nations Security Council resolutions. So I think what the hon. Gentleman said was unfair.
	If I may be more helpful, if the hon. Gentleman really wanted to point out the glaring contradictions of the Lib Dem position he might compare, not Kosovo and Iraq, but Iraq 1998 with the last intervention in Iraq. Exactly the same legal grounds were used as a basis for military intervention in Iraq in 1998, and accepted and defended in, I think, both Houses of Parliament by the Liberals, as were later disputed by them in the recent intervention.

John Reid: I am not aware of anybody suggesting that we should withdraw the United States forces from Iraq, thus leaving the 8,000 British forces there to cope. I am trying to understand the question. Certainly, as a generic response, I would say that we would not take any of these decisions without the fullest consultation with our allies, prime among them, of course, the United States, which is making a huge contribution not only to countering the present insurgency and terrorism in Iraq but to training forces. All that will be done, but we reserve the right, as does any sovereign nation, to make our own decisions ultimately, but we have always done that in the fullest consultation with our allies and will continue to do so.
	The point applies not only to Iraq and Afghanistan, but to other areas of the world. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) raised the question of Darfur and whether more should be done to strengthen the United Nations mandate. We are putting pressure on all sides to try to find a peaceful resolution to this difficult and tragic crisis while, in the meantime, putting pressure on all sides to observe the ceasefire and their other commitments under it. The Government of Sudan and the Darfuri rebels must co-operate with African Union mediators so that there can be an early resumption of the Abuja peace talks. We therefore welcome the EU's decision to double the size of its monitoring mission. We have already provided in the order of £14 million to that mission and we are looking to see how we can assist its expansion, including through the possibility of NATO or EU help.
	Another issue that was raised by several Members, including the foreign affairs spokesmen for the Liberals and the Conservatives, was the Chinese arms embargo. Of course, there are concerns about China, particularly about human rights, that do not need to be re-expressed in the House. The EU has agreed to review the embargo, and that review is ongoing. We believe that the embargo is an ineffective means of controlling arms sales to China and that the revised code of conduct would be more effective. However—and I stress this—no date has been set for a decision on lifting the embargo. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has previously made clear, China's recent anti-secessionist law has created a very difficult political environment in which to discuss these matters. I fully understand the concerns expressed not only by hon. Members in the House but by the United States, and I agree on the importance of maintaining security as a major factor in our consideration of the east Asia region.

John Reid: I am aware of the report, but I cannot say that I have read it verbatim. However, on the advice of my hon. Friend, who, from our past discussions, I have always found wise on these matters, I shall return to it.
	We will have big decisions to make quite apart from those on Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas of operational disposition of our troops. One was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North and for Sunderland, South, and they were visibly and helpfully assisted by the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes. I refer to Trident and the continuation of our nuclear deterrent. I think that we have been pretty open about that. The defence White Paper in 2003 indicated clearly that it was likely that decisions on whether to replace Trident would be needed during this Parliament and that we were taking steps to keep options open until a decision point was reached, and that continues to be the case.
	It would be irresponsible for me to speculate from the Dispatch Box within days of arriving in my position about exactly what decisions might be needed, or exactly when they will be needed. However, I shall keep the House informed about the matter, as we have tried to do in the past. As I have been asked questions today, I confirm to the House that no decisions on any replacement have been taken in principle or otherwise. However, it is likely that such decisions will have to be taken during the course of this Parliament.

John Reid: My hon. Friend posits something that envisages a qualitative and quantifiable watershed between the maintenance of facilities, whereby they are updated and rendered continually safe so that our existing nuclear deterrent is made more effective, and, a new weapon. The world does not work like that any more than one day we will have capitalism and the next we will have socialism, but my hon. Friend and I have argued about that as well. I do not think that the world develops like that.
	The reality is that the preparations necessary to maintain a nuclear deterrent in a safe condition, which is constantly updated to meet new threats in terms of accuracy and new technology, are an integral part of what might become—I do not say will become—one possible avenue for one of the many alternatives that we might have to consider if are going to update, replace or modernise our nuclear deterrent. That is as honest an answer as I can give to my hon. Friend. In the real world, there is no such complete gap.
	Talking of the real world, I have managed to deal with only three areas and I have been questioned on 15. If I may, I shall be much quicker in dealing with some of the others, but that does not mean that I do not regard them as major issues.

John Reid: My right hon. Friend helpfully shouts "Hear, hear", as he has to pore over papers on, among other things, Uzbekistan—a serious issue, which has been raised in the debate.
	The Government—and I am sure the whole House—are very concerned by what has happened in Uzbekistan. As a result, we are reviewing bilateral activities with the Uzbeks. Those are limited in scope and aimed at encouraging reform in the management of defence and at promoting higher professional standards. All export licences are assessed against European Union criteria. In the light of recent events, the Government have revised all licences to Uzbekistan, so that we are assured that they all conform to the criteria. Most are for dual-use equipment. I hope that the House is reassured by that.
	The subject of Iran was raised by spokesmen for both Opposition parties. We will continue our effort to obtain guarantees that Iran's nuclear programme is explicitly for peaceful purposes. We have to continue that. We are committed to trying to make the E3 process a success. The Foreign Secretary has made it clear in talking about Iran that he can envisage
	"no circumstances in which military action would be justified".—[Official Report, 9 November 2004; Vol. 426, c. 686.]
	He said that such action would form no part of Government policy.
	I hope that I have done justice to most of the points that have been raised—admittedly, at length. I thought that as the new Secretary of State for Defence I should reply as fully as possible in this first debate attempt from the Dispatch Box. Of course, there are wider issues of context in which such questions have been raised.
	It is our job in government and in the House to assess and plan for the security challenges that we now face and will face in future. That goes to the heart of some of the points raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes. We believe that in the foreseeable future there is unlikely to be a resurgence of a conventional threat to the territory of the United Kingdom or of our allies. We say that with all the caveats that history places on that in reality, and with all our knowledge of the bland assumptions of the past that there would be no territorial threats of the sort which events—the terrible harbinger of difficulties—have thrown on us from the early years of the last century through to the Falklands in the 1980s.
	That does not mean—and we must never be lulled into believing that it means—that the threats out there are any less dangerous or immediate. The threats to international peace and stability that have emerged since the end of the cold war are more asymmetric—in modern coinage—than that of one nation threatening the territorial sovereignty of another. However, they are no less immediate and serious. The threats and challenges posed by international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly when unconstrained by any democratic control, by failed or failing states, or by what are sometimes called rogue states, each have the potential to damage global security and well-being and to threaten our security from afar. But in combination, the whole of the threat is even greater, much greater, than the sum of its parts.
	That is not the world in which we have chosen to live, but the world that we inherited—a world that continues to change very rapidly. In 1997, as the hon. Member for Woodspring pointed out, we undertook the strategic defence review. I was privileged and proud to play a main role in directing the course of that review. We did that because of the rapidly changing world after the cold war. Since 1997, under previous Secretaries of State, we have constantly evaluated our ability to meet fast-evolving security challenges. That process began with the SDR, which has been followed by constant—almost permanent—revision and renewal as the world changes at a rate that has accelerated exponentially. Following the atrocities of 11 September 2001, our thinking evolved through the new chapter to the SDR. More recently, in December 2003, we published the defence White Paper, "Delivering Security in a Changing World", which broadly confirmed the rationale behind the SDR but suggested the need for even greater reach, speed of deployability and agility of response. The White Paper recognised that the opportunities to act to counter the threats we faced might be fleeting.
	Bearing in mind the points made by some of my hon. Friends and by Liberal Democrat Members, let me say that of course we cannot solve all those problems by military means alone. There are some problems to which there are no solutions, and some to which there are no exclusively military solutions. Whatever we think about the efficacy of our armed forces, we recognise that the potential and, if necessary, actual disposition of military fighting power is rarely a sufficient condition to address the challenges that face us. However, it is often a necessary condition, and not only in counter-terrorism: the capabilities of our armed forces are equally important in responding to humanitarian crises. Our ability to put fighting power in the field is both necessary and sufficient to meet some challenges, but it is not sufficient to meet others and we need to deploy the whole gamut of diplomatic, financial and legal mechanisms as well as military means.
	In the modern, interdependent world, we can rarely go it alone. We need both better cross-departmental working inside Government in our internal affairs and better international working in our external affairs. That, among other reasons, is why the United Kingdom remains wholly committed to working through international organisations such as the G8, the United Nations, NATO, the EU and—let me reassure the hon. Member for Woodspring—the Commonwealth, which remains a potent vehicle for tackling challenges both specific and general. We are committed to working through all those organisations to develop effective collective responses to global security challenges. We shall use our presidency of the G8 and of the EU to advance our higher priorities, which include tackling poverty in Africa and climate change as well as the other issues mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe when he opened the debate. We do that because it is in our self-interest and because it is our responsibility as citizens of the wider world to promote international stability and development.
	I look forward to playing my part in the multinational forums in which defence has a prominent profile. In that context, let me restate that NATO is the cornerstone of our collective security—a point recognised in the EU treaty—and that the UK will continue to play a full and, wherever possible, leading role in that alliance. This will include continuing to modernise and transform NATO to face its new 21st century challenges.
	I am delighted that one of the decisions that we took in the strategic defence review, which was implemented by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Defence, was the purchase of the C-17, or rather the leasing of the C-17 heavy and very large aircraft for strategic lift. [Interruption.] I do not know whether praise is being showered upon me from a sedentary position by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). However, I am convinced that it is one of the best decisions that we have taken in recent years. That has been confirmed by my recent discussions with servicemen and women in the RAF, who assure me that it was an important and huge step forward in our strategic lift capability.
	In that way we enhanced not only ourselves but also the European powers, by making it possible for us to operate strategic lift where previously we were not able to do so. In the EU, we will work to build up the European security and defence policy as part of the common foreign and security policy.
	Our aims during the United Kingdom's presidency of the EU are to continue the agenda that will see the European security and defence policy become more capable, more coherent and more active. All the while we must ensure that the process is compatible with NATO's security structures and thus avoid unnecessary duplication of waste. We must also ensure that we play to the EU's strengths, such as the breadth of non-military tools that it can bring to bear in emerging or continuing international crises.
	Our armed forces are making a strong contribution to international stability in conjunction with the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. As a force for good, our armed forces are called upon to perform a huge range of tasks around the globe. We have dealt with only the most obvious examples in Iraq, Afghanistan and so on. I am extremely proud, as I am sure we all are, of the part that our armed forces played in bringing about the right conditions for the recent successful elections in Iraq. It was an historic occasion. Despite the threat not only of terrorism but of death, in many cases the turnout was just under 60 per cent. It was not hugely different from the turnout in both of our most recent elections in this country. That is testimony first to the courage of the people of Iraq, and secondly to the role that the multinational forces are playing. As I have met for the first time Iraqi forces in the build-up of their 10th division, I pay tribute to the effective role that they played in protecting the people going to polling booths in Iraq.
	The success of those security measures on the day was possible only because of the hard work of the Iraqi security forces and the supporting roles played by coalition forces. The violence of the past few weeks presents us with a huge challenge, but it should not be allowed to overshadow the enormity of the step towards a free and democratic Iraq.
	As the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) mentioned, I returned this morning from visiting Iraq. I am refreshed and once again astounded by the commitment of that country's own young men and women in the armed forces. I am pleased that the Iraqis are building up their own strength to enable them gradually to take over leadership in the provinces throughout their country. More than 165,000 Iraqi personnel have now been trained and equipped by the coalition. For the first time, that number is more than the number of personnel trained by the multinational forces.
	We are committed to Iraq for as long as the Iraqi Government judge that necessary. Progress towards withdrawal will depend on achieving certain conditions, as the Iraqi forces become more and more able to take on a full range of security tasks. That will be the arbiter and the benchmark of our decision-making process, which will not be confined to a set of preordained time scales.
	I met the 10th division in Basra. I also met the new Iraqi Defence Minister, Mr. al-Dulaimi, who is a Sunni, part of the minority population of Iraq. He was appointed Defence Minister on the same day as I was appointed Secretary of State for Defence. He has probably already suffered just as many attacks and criticisms as I have in that short period. However, I know that he is fully committed to ensuring the peace and stability of his country, and he is a Sunni who is committed to working for all of the people of Iraq who want to offer a better future for all the people there.
	I met General Casey, the four-star US general in charge of the strategic direction of the multinational force, who was generous with his praise not only for the British armed forces but for the work of civilian staff in the reconstruction effort and for the leadership role played by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) in that effort.
	In Iraq, we remain committed to assisting the new Government in stabilising the country. [Interruption.] The usual complaint from the Opposition is that I do not answer in detail all the points that they have made. It is refreshing, if annoying, to be criticised for doing the opposite today In conjunction with officials from the Department for International Development, British armed forces have supported the reconstruction of the country's dilapidated infrastructure. That is a genuine problem, and it is essential that progress on maintaining security in Iraq is accompanied by political, social and economic development. The Iraqis are making progress in all areas, but they need our help.
	In Afghanistan NATO, as well as the international coalition, is playing its part in bringing security to the more remote areas. I have already dealt with issues arising from that, so I shall mention some of the other areas in which our forces are playing a vital role, including the Balkans and sub-Saharan Africa. Our commitment to the task in the Balkans is demonstrated by the current UK leadership of the EU force that took over command from NATO in Bosnia and Herzegovina in December 2004.
	The House has previously discussed our ambitious modernisation programme, as set out in the future capabilities paper published last year. Given the time available, I shall not go into that programme in detail, and will merely point out that the Opposition's pervasive assumption that bigger is better and smaller is worse is not a working assumption for the chiefs of staff, the military or, indeed, myself. Many changes have been introduced, including new equipment and capability.

Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to assure the Secretary of State that I shall not complain about his answering the questions put by my right hon. and hon. Friends, but let me put this question to him. He has asserted that the chiefs of staff are happy, yet he himself set out in the strategic defence review that there should be 32 surface vessels. The Government are now proposing to reduce those to 25. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman talk to Sir Alan West, the First Sea Lord, and sees what he thinks about that reduction, because he has said that it puts him in a difficult position and he wants to know which tasks he will have to forgo in order to meet his tasks with a substantially reduced surface fleet.

John Reid: The Conservatives said that they would make £1.8 billion of efficiency savings, but nobody believed that they could take £1.8 billion out of the Ministry of Defence by saving paper clips and making sure that staff used one pen rather than two per fortnight. At best, they would have frozen defence expenditure, and they would probably have cut it. [Interruption.] No one should be surprised, because that is exactly what they did when they were in government. Let us conduct this argument on the back of a series of empirically based and historically verifiable facts—we have increased defence expenditure in real terms; they cut it by 29 per cent. over a 10-year period.
	Personnel suffer most when defence expenditure is cut. One can train and educate forces and one can buy aircraft carriers, ships and planes, but the third element of fighting power, people and their morale, which concerns leadership, bonding, traditions, commitment and determination, is at the core of defence. Accordingly, we have made a large investment in welfare. When we deal with great geo-strategic issues in this House, little matters do not seem to bear much discussion, but access to telephones and telephone cards, deliveries of letters, receiving British Forces Broadcasting and Sky and watching the latest films and videos means a lot to people if they are in a camp in the middle of a desert on a dark night.
	I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on his emphasis on welfare, and personnel in Basra, Baghdad and elsewhere made that point to me as recently as 24 hours ago. Welfare services help to make a very difficult life tolerable, which is why the new pension and compensation schemes include greatly improved death benefits and widow's benefits. The MoD has recently announced that the service group life assurance scheme will offer the armed forces insurance without exclusions at premiums comparable to those offered by civilian schemes. As one supermarket says, "every little helps", and all those little things add up to make a huge difference to the welfare of soldiers, sailors and airmen.

Bob Russell: I congratulate the new Minister on his appointment and welcome him to the Dispatch Box for the first time. I hope that he enjoys his time as Minister. He has a very responsible position, and I have confidence that he will deliver; I certainly hope that he will do so in relation to what I shall propose tonight.
	Where have all the flowers gone? In the case of Britain's wild flowers, one in five species is on the brink of extinction—345 out of a total of 1,756. That is an appalling indictment of those who have allowed this environmental doomsday to occur. The 20th century—the most destructive 100 years since man first walked on earth—was a disaster for our indigenous wild flowers, with more than 97 per cent. of the nation's wild flower meadows lost since 1945. As we commemorate the 60th anniversary of the end of the second world war in Europe, let us reflect that today Britain's wild flower landscape from that time has changed beyond all recognition. There are several reasons for that: the continuing urbanisation of the countryside; changes in agricultural practices, not just the use of chemicals, pesticides and fertilisers, although those are major causes; contradictory farming policy directives from successive Governments and from the European Union; and climate change.
	Last week, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee published "The Vascular Plant Red Data List for Great Britain", which was the result of a two-year investigation by a working group comprising 10 of the UK's leading botanists and outlining the current dire position. That should not have come as a real surprise, for 20 years ago Nature Conservation in Britain reported that 97 per cent. of the nation's traditional wild flower meadows which existed in 1945 had been destroyed or degraded.
	The position in my home county of Essex is even worse. According to the Essex phase 1 survey published in the early 1990s, 99 per cent. of the wild flower meadows had been destroyed or degraded. I shall turn later to what is happening in Essex, in order to report bad news involving the Government which will destroy some of the remaining 1 per cent., but also encouraging news from my home town of Colchester, where the borough council has reversed the trend and introduced wild flower areas.
	First, however, the national picture. Those who researched and compiled the red data list come from English Nature, the Countryside Council for Wales, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, the Botanical Society of the British Isles, Plantlife, the Natural History museum, and the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh. They and the 1,000 volunteers—members of the Botanical Society of the British Isles—who undertook the two-year surveillance are to be commended for the quality of their research and to be thanked for drawing attention to the deteriorating situation.
	Government have a responsibility to act, and to act quickly and positively, to halt the decline, and to take measures that will see not only token pockets of wild flowers but their widespread restoration as an integral feature of our landscape that past generations enjoyed and bequeathed to us. We have a responsibility to pass on our colourful natural heritage to future generations.
	The Joint Nature Conservation Committee tells me:
	"The new Red Data List highlights the fact that 345 British vascular plants—approximately one in five of the British flora—are under threat, while a further 98 are"—
	to use the committee's phrase—"near threatened." The committee states that a relatively large number of widespread and often well known species appear on the red list for the first time. They include plants that are the habitat of, for example, the skylark and house sparrow, which have undergone severe population decline.
	One of the plants at risk of extinction is the corn buttercup, which is traditionally found in corn and bean fields throughout England. It is now limited to Oxfordshire, Norfolk, Essex, Surrey and Lincolnshire. There has been an 81 per cent. decline since 1987. The red data list concludes that it is "critically endangered".
	Another wild flower at risk is the purple milk-vetch. It is still found in sand dunes along the east coast from Scotland to Lincolnshire and East Anglia, but it has disappeared from fertilised grass lands. That plant is listed as "endangered", while the night-flowering catchfly, which is found on arable land in Norfolk and Suffolk, is listed as "vulnerable to extinction". All have suffered huge decline in the past 20 years. The roll call of plants on the red list and detailed according to internationally recognised criteria are placed in categories of "critically endangered", "endangered" and "vulnerable to extinction". I presume that the Under-Secretary has the complete copy.
	All who love our countryside want to hear today what action the Government will take in the light of the environmental doomsday account that has been brought to their attention. I welcome the following promise in the Gracious Speech:
	"Legislation will be brought forward to ensure the better management and protection of the natural environment".
	But action is needed now, in advance of the legislation. Will the Under-Secretary state whether positive action will emerge from the review of the Government's biodiversity action plan, which, I understand, is to take place shortly?
	The Under-Secretary could make an immediate start by having words with the Deputy Prime Minister, whose office currently proposes the construction of something like 1,600 homes on several sensitive meadows, which the Government own, at Langdon Hills, Basildon. They contain rare plant species such as green-veined orchids, adder's-tongue fern and hay rattle. The meadows constitute a valuable complex that should not be destroyed, especially in the light of the red list's alarming report and the fact that Essex has already lost more wild flower meadows than the national percentage.
	It is not my place to articulate the local arguments to save the area from development, but I mention this briefly as an example of the way in which the Government are aiding and abetting the destruction of yet more of our declining number of wild flower meadows. I shall not stray into the Stansted airport debate, but doubtless those who wish to save our wild flower meadows will examine that.
	To stick to Essex, I am grateful to Mr. Andrew May, conservation manager for the Essex Wildlife Trust—a fantastic organisation—who tells me:
	"The future of Essex wild flowers is on a knife-edge. The wildlife areas that remain are often too small and isolated to survive in the long term.
	Within Essex, the last 50 years have seen the loss of 99 per cent. of flower-rich meadows, 82 per cent. of grazing marsh, 50 per cent. of hedgerows and 24 per cent. of ancient woodlands.
	Many species of insects, especially butterflies and moths, depend on flower-rich grasslands. Results of other recent analysis are alarming with butterfly species, native birds and native plants declined by 71 per cent., 54 per cent. and 28 per cent. respectively in the last 20 years.
	Plant after plant is becoming extinct as a result of changing farming methods, and as industry, housing, new roads, inappropriate management and planting schemes, gravel extraction, landfill and leisure activities all expanded to take up precious space."
	Clearly, Essex needs to do much to retrieve the situation. I hope that the debate this evening will galvanise the county into action before it is too late.
	I understand that the Bill that the Government plan to introduce will create a single organisation—Natural England—combining English Nature, parts of the Countryside Agency and most of the Rural Development Service. When does the Under-Secretary expect the new agency to be established? Will its remit include not only the protection of existing wild flower habitats but also, as part of its mission statement, the development of new areas of wild flower meadows and reserves?
	Perhaps the Minister will reflect on the words of Dr. Trevor Dines of the wild flower conservation charity, Plantlife, who is one of the authors of the red data list survey. He said:
	"We had no idea that some of these declines were as bad as they are and we were very shocked to discover them."
	Dr. Chris Cheffings, the plants advisor to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, was quoted in an article in The Times by its countryside editor Valerie Elliott. She said:
	"My parents' farm was one of the last sites in Lincolnshire for corn buttercups; alas, that has all gone. I grew up seeing purple milk-vetch on the roadsides; this is now, by and large, gone."
	Dr. Cheffings said that she found it shocking that so many species were on the red list.
	Mr. Michael McCarthy, the environment editor of The Independent, wrote a by-lined article on 9 May, under the headline:
	"How chemicals altered balance between farming and natural world".
	The article concluded:
	"The fields still look green when you go for your country walk; but often, green is all they look, and the wonderful pattern of colour they once exhibited is no longer to be seen."
	In a second article by Mr. McCarthy, entitled
	"Botanists shocked by scale of wild flower decline",
	he said of the red list:
	"The findings mean that priorities for conserving Britain's wild flowers in future will need to be reordered, with more concern for commonplace plants in the fields of the wider countryside outside protected areas—the ones that are really at risk."
	Does the Minister concur with that conclusion?
	There is a general recognition that, notwithstanding the major declines of the past 60 years, considerable efforts have been made to safeguard threatened species, thanks to the establishment of nature reserves and to the protection offered by sites of special scientific interest—SSSIs. The volunteers and various organisations engaged in such work are to be applauded for their valiant efforts. I should also like to add my appreciation of those enlightened farmers and landowners who value the importance of wild flowers and have taken steps not only to protect them but positively to encourage an increase in their numbers and the areas in which they can flourish.
	I am most grateful to the many people who have provided background briefing for my contribution this evening, including Terri Tarpey, Jerry Heath and members of the Colchester natural history society. I am also grateful to Mr. Paul Vickers, the countryside sites manager for Colchester borough council. I am delighted to say that the council has implemented a policy of creating wild flower meadows and reserves for almost 20 years, as a direct result of a policy measure that I pushed for when I was mayor of Britain's oldest recorded town, Colchester, in 1986–87. I should like to quote the good news given by Mr. Vickers, which I suggest is an excellent example that many other local authorities should be encouraged to follow. He says that he is
	"responsible for 430 hectares of Colchester Borough Council owned countryside open space land, that is land that is publicly accessible and possesses high landscape and wildlife value. The land consists of country parks, nature reserves and farmland."
	I should like to make special mention of the High Woods and Cymbeline Meadows country parks, which are two success stories of the former Liberal Democrat council, of which I was once the leader. Mr. Vickers continues:
	"Approximately 200 hectares of the land is 'conservation grassland'. Since the 1980s many larger sites have been converted from former arable by the Council, and sown with indigenous grasses and wild flowers. They are now looked after by programmes of grazing or hay cutting each year. This annual management is based around site management planning, citizen science, rangering, environmental education and community engagement. The original work has proved enduring and these sites are a much-loved part of Colchester's natural heritage. They are used by hundreds of thousands of visitors for informal recreation each year in addition to the formal educational use by many local schools and colleges. They have encourage local people to take pride in Colchester and engendered protection of local greenspaces. Seven of the sites have been designated as Local Nature Reserves by the Council in recognition of their importance to local people and local wildlife. (Bull Meadow, Lexden Park, Lexden Springs, Hilly Fields, Lower Lodge Farm, Salary Brook and Wivenhoe Ferry Marsh.) They are a diverse group of sites—heath, marsh, wet grassland and neutral grassland. Collectively they support a wide range of local flora and fauna, many locally scarce."
	I should like to put some questions to the Minister. If he cannot answer them tonight, perhaps he could write to me later and place a copy of his reply in the Library.
	Threatened status in the new red list is determined by evidence of decline, but many of our rarest species are found only in a handful of sites that conservationists have managed successfully over the last few decades. They have therefore not declined, and are now not classed as threatened, although their continued survival depends on direct conservation action. Can the Minister give an assurance that those species will not slip through the conservation net?
	Agri-environmental schemes are often touted as effective mechanisms to protect and enhance biodiversity in the wider countryside. Such schemes, however, do not include enough monitoring of plant populations to ensure that they are having the desired effects. We are experimenting with our landscape, and we are effectively blindfolded. Can the Minister give an assurance that adequate funds and resources will be devoted to monitoring the botanical impact of agri-environmental schemes so that it can be properly assessed?
	The Government's biodiversity action plan seeks to deliver conservation for all threatened species. Can the Minister give an assurance that all new additions to the red list will be included in an updated United Kingdom biodiversity action plan? Can the Minister give an assurance that adequate funds will be made available for conservation work?
	The new red list includes many species classed as being threatened for the first time, and it may be appropriate to protect the sites where they are found. Can the Minister give an assurance that, despite the current emphasis in Government on securing favourable status for the existing protected-site network—the SSSIs—there is a programme of work to continue to identify new SSSIs?
	Some wild plants receive statutory protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which protects species perceived to be at risk from collection. However, our wild plants face many more threats, such as habitat destruction. Given that many species in the new red list are still widespread but have declined significantly, does the legislation need to be widened and strengthened so that the habitats of those species are protected from destruction before it is too late?
	I draw Members' attention to the forthcoming Chelsea flower show, and urge them to visit the Wildlife Trusts Lush Garden. The garden is described thus:
	"Sited on a gentle slope, the Wildlife Trusts' Lush Garden nestles softly into a mature landscape of orchard and wild flower meadow . . .
	Past the garden building a small meadow of flowering grasses and wild flowers sway".
	We can all picture the scene. The garden was designed by Giles Landscapes' design principal, Mr. Stephen Hall. The company is based in Welney, on the border between Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. This is something we can all look forward to.
	I began by asking "Where have all the flowers gone?" I am grateful for the words of Pete Seeger, who went on to say:
	"Long time passing
	Where have all the flowers gone?
	Long time ago
	Where have all the flowers gone?"
	I hope that the Minister will promise tonight that the Government will take positive measures to restore the wild flower meadows of Britain.

Jim Knight: I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on securing the debate. He ended as he began, by quoting from "Where Have All The Flowers Gone?" I am not sure whether he was, or is, much of a hippie, but I recall his work as mayor of Colchester in the local wild flower meadow campaign and I am told that, given his equal love of darts, he is known in some of Colchester's pubs as Bob "The Flower Power" Russell. We must draw our own conclusions.
	This is my first appearance at the Dispatch Box as a Minister. I am pleased that it is so early in the Session and that it is in my capacity as Minister with responsibility for biodiversity that I respond to this debate. It is an opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), who did a fantastic job as an advocate for rural areas and the countryside. I am sure that he will be missed at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as much as he is welcomed at the Department of Trade and Industry.
	The future of wild flowers is very important and the hon. Gentleman is right to be as concerned as he is. Protecting natural resources such as flower species is important in its own right but it also matters to our constituents as part of the need to improve our quality of life. Twenty-first century life is full of pressures just to get by. Dealing with those stresses and strains makes relaxation and recreation of increasing importance to the Government and that informs our emphasis on enhancing biodiversity. Wild flowers are very much part of that wider story.
	Another part of my new portfolio is rural affairs. Those of us who live in rural England and the many others who visit it want to enjoy our beautiful landscape, the birds, the animals and the other plants as well as the wild flowers. That appreciation adds hugely to our quality of life and to our rural economy. I was reading this week that a project in Cornwall to protect the chough, a symbol of that county, has generated extra visitors worth over £100,000 to the economy of Cornwall, so this is not just about biodiversity. There is a much wider agenda, which I will pursue during my tenure of this ministerial position. Biodiversity generally, and wild flowers specifically, are crucial and worthy of debate in this House.
	The debate is informed by the new red data list for vascular plants that was launched last week and that, for the first time, provides, as the hon. Gentleman said, a thorough assessment of the whole of the British flora, not just species that were considered nationally rare or scarce. I pay tribute to the many people who worked so hard to compile that authoritative and useful report. Up to that point, DEFRA and its partners principally focused attention on rare and scarce species in the absence of the more complete picture that we now have, which has been to good effect.
	When one analyses the past week's media coverage of the report, it is easy to regard it as a doomsday scenario. We must not be complacent. There is plenty of work to do, but some rare species that appeared in previous versions of the red data list are no longer included because, while still rare, they now have stable populations. Often, they are looked after in national nature reserves or wildlife trust reserves, as the hon. Gentleman said. Examples include goldilocks aster, string sedge and dwarf spike-rush. Cowslips have also returned to the chalk downland in Berkshire. I am sure that we all celebrate the progress on those species and that we will continue to want to conserve the species whose populations have now stabilised.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, the report shows that a high proportion—80 per cent. of our flora is not under threat, but it highlights that 345 British vascular plants are under threat, while a further 98 are "near threatened". This is the first time that an analysis has been carried out of the entire British flora, so it is perhaps not surprising that a large number of new species have been added to the red list. There are familiar examples of decline. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the corn buttercup on more than one occasion. It is one of many arable plants affected by changing farming practices. The use of herbicides, field margins and shifting to autumn-sown crops are some of the practices implicated. The field gentian has been declining in uplands due to overgrazing. If you were to look at a copy of the report, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would see that the illustration on the front is of the field gentian. The green-winged orchid has suffered from the loss of lowland meadows and the frogbit is disappearing due to the draining of marshland for arable use, so we have challenges to face and we are not complacent.
	We have a three-pronged approach to help reverse any further decline and improve the abundance of our rarer plants: first, robust legal protection that is regularly reviewed; secondly, the promotion of different farming methods to encourage the abundance of wildflowers; and, thirdly, the continuation of our crucial work to enhance biodiversity generally through the action plan process.
	Taking those in turn, the main legislative tool is the protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Schedule 8 contains a list of plants the status of which is of most conservation concern and which are therefore given the greatest legal protection against intentional picking, uprooting, destruction or sale. This includes plants such as lady's slipper, red helleborine and fringed gentian, each of which is described as "critically endangered" on the new red data list.
	Every five years, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee reviews the plant species listed in schedule 8 and then advises the Government and the devolved Administrations. The last such review took place in 2001, when the JNCC recommended that no plant species should be added to or removed from schedule 8. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we shall carefully consider the findings of the next review, which is due next year, and update the legislation as necessary, particularly in the light of the work that we are discussing this evening.
	We are also introducing two additional relevant pieces of legislation in this Queen's Speech. The hon. Gentleman referred to the natural environment and rural communities Bill, which will be introduced soon and establishes Natural England to preserve and enhance the natural environment while enabling access for social and economic benefit. He asked when it would be established. We are saying in the Bill that it will be by January 2007. I am sure that we would like to bring that forward slightly if we can, but that is the deadline that we are setting ourselves. The Bill also includes provisions to prevent the infiltration of non-native species from overseas into the UK, which is directly relevant to wild flowers, especially in the light of the concerns over the European bluebell. Natural England will be an active voice in the planning process, which I hope will give some reassurance, although I am sure that it will not completely reassure the hon. Gentleman or allay all his concerns about housing development.
	The other legislation in the Queen's Speech of relevance is the common land Bill, which will be important in enhancing sites of special scientific interest. More than half of common land is made up of SSSIs, but over 40 per cent. of those are not up to adequate standards. If we are to meet our target of bringing 95 per cent. of SSSIs up to a proper standard by 2010, we must take action in respect of common land, and the Bill will allow those sites to be more easily managed, and thereby prevent the overgrazing that has caused so much damage to species such as the field gentian.
	The second prong is the use of the agri-environment schemes. The environmental stewardship scheme was launched on 3 March 2005. It is a new agri-environment scheme that funds farmers and other land managers in England who deliver effective environmental management on their land. The scheme builds on the success of the countryside stewardship and environmentally sensitive area schemes. One key objective is to conserve wildlife, which includes wild flowers. Specific options under the new scheme require land managers to carry out careful management that will encourage the increase in wild flower species. For example, there is an opportunity to manage field margins more sympathetically and thereby improve the prospects for flowers such as the corn buttercup.
	Agri-environment schemes, including environmental stewardship, protect and enhance landscapes. Prescriptions for careful management are drawn up in consultation with partners, including English Nature and the Countryside Agency—soon to be Natural England. Land managers receive annual payments over 10 years to comply with stringent management conditions, such as limiting grazing or stopping ploughing or the use of fertiliser, fungicides or pesticides. That, as the hon. Gentleman knows, will encourage a welcome increase in wild flowers in the countryside.
	With the introduction of the entry level environmental stewardship scheme, worth £150 million a year, we aim to cover the majority of English farmland and we shall be able to tackle countrywide problems such as the loss of these wild flowers. It is precisely because of the need to join up the thinking around these payments to farmers with natural resource protection that Natural England is being formed out of English Nature, the Countryside Agency and elements of the rural development service.
	I hope that we can also prevent SSSIs from becoming isolated fragments of conversation by using those incentives. Those in agriculture do much to shape our landscape—we have much to thank farmers for in the beautiful landscape that we all enjoy—but I hope that the use of those incentives and schemes will ensure that the protection and enhancement of our environment, including wild flowers, can continue outside the pockets of SSSIs, nature reserves and so on.
	The third prong is the biodiversity action plan process. The UK biodiversity action plan was published in January 1994, in response to article 6 of the convention on biological diversity. It helps to co-ordinate work nationally and locally, by identifying priorities for action and setting biological targets for the recovery of habitats and species, including wildflowers.
	Maintaining and enhancing habitats, species and ecosystems are the key elements of our work on biodiversity. Last month, the Government announced funding worth nearly £2 million in the form of grants for 30 biodiversity projects across the country. The money, which comes from the DEFRA's environmental action fund, will support projects that play an important role in highlighting and integrating biodiversity into all walks of life.
	Since 1995, a total of 436 UK priority species and habitat action plans and about 150 local biodiversity action plans have been published. Among the species action plans are many for endangered wild flowers, including a grouped plan for eyebrights—one of the species mentioned in the recent red data list. However, we do not live in a static world. Existing habitat and species action plans and associated targets were based on the best information available at the time.
	To respond to new information such as that contained in the new red data list, new conservation opportunities and changing threats to species and habitats, it is important to report regularly and assess the lists periodically. We have agreed therefore to a full review of the UK biodiversity action plan this year. Of course, we will take full account of the new, complete red data list in that review. We will gather as much quantitative data as possible and will prepare revised candidate priority lists based on scientific criteria.
	To an extent, the 436 priority species and 150 local biodiversity action plans involved make a strategic approach difficult, and we must do some strategic work, looking across the whole spread, to determine how we assess the priorities. So, as a second stage, we will look at the feasibility and appropriateness of taking conservation action. We aim to publish a provisional list of priorities in March 2006, for wider consultation with not only hon. Members who take such a great interest in these issues, such as the hon. Member for Colchester, but with partner agencies, wildlife trusts and local activists throughout the country, who are so passionate about this important issue. The final stage will be to consider feedback and identify a suite of conservation implementation measures using a collective approach to all species and habitats. The intention is to complete this process before the end of 2006.
	I am delighted that we have had this opportunity to debate this important issue, which lies at the heart of my responsibility for biodiversity. I have not been able to cover some of the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked to give him full satisfaction, but I will endeavour to write to him and place the answers to those questions in the Library, as he requested. However, there is much to do as we look forward, and we are developing the tools in government to do it.
	The red data list, along with other research, gives a more accurate picture of the problems and challenges that we face. The natural environment and rural communities Bill will give us the delivery agency to act properly. With legislation, the agri-environment schemes and the biodiversity action plans, Natural England will have the levers that it needs to continue to make good progress. We should not duck the problem or be complacent about its scale but we should be optimistic that, by working together and in partnership and using those tools and levers, we can make good progress as we look forward into the future.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Seven o'clock.